If.XZ.l*). 

LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Purchased  by  the  Hamill  Missionary  Fund. 


BV  2550  . N4 

Neely,  Thomas  B.  1841-1925. 
The  Methodist  Episcopal 
church  and  its  foreign 


■ 

' 


K' 

■p, 

.  . 

i 

' 

■Jl 


‘  •  1 


. 


■ » 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


* 


https://archive.org/details/rnethodistepiscop00neel_0 


OTHER  BOOKS  BY  BISHOP  NEELY 


THE  BISHOPS  AND  THE  SUPER  VISIONAL  SYSTEM 
IN  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

THE  GOVERNING  CONFERENCE  IN  METHODISM 

NEELY’S  PARLIAMENTARY  PRACTICE 

JOURNAL  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1792 


The 


st  Episcopal 

and  its 

Foreign  Missions 


t3 


By  */ 

THOMAS  BENJAMIN  NEELY 

Eishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 

NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  1923,  by 
THOMAS  B.  NEELY 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


TO 

THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
MISSIONS 
IN 

SOUTH  AMERICA 
AND 

MY  COWORKERS 


IN  THAT  FIELD 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

Preface .  9 

A  Syllabus  of  Chapters .  11 

I.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church .  33 

II.  The  Nature  of  the  Church .  47 

III.  Foreign  Missions .  67 

IV.  The  Central  Seat  of  Authority .  83 

V.  The  Bishopric  or  Superintendency .  93 

VL  The  Missionary  Bishopric .  113 

VII.  The  Board  of  Bishops .  137 

VIII.  Present  Considerations .  165 

IX.  The  Future  of  Foreign  Missions .  189 

X.  In  the  Meantime .  231 

XI.  The  General  Conference  of  1920 .  253 

XII.  Expert  Evidence .  273 

XIII.  The  Denominational  Mission .  287 

XIV.  The  Next  Step  Not  a  False  Step .  297 

Index .  333 


PEEFACE 


The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organ¬ 
ized  in  the  United  States  of  America,  sometimes 
spoken  of  briefly  as  America.  This  was  its  birth¬ 
place  and  here  was  its  habitat. 

In  course  of  time,  having  the  missionary  spirit, 
the  work  of  this  church  was  extended  to  foreign 
countries,  so  that,  at  this  time,  the  missions  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  found  in  Europe, 
Asia,  and  Africa,  and  in  North,  Central,  and 
South  America,  and  also  in  islands  of  the  seas. 

In  view  of  these  efforts  to  spread  the  gospel, 
questions  have  arisen  as  to  the  relation  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  and  these  foreign  missions,  and  not  a 
few  have  held  differences  of  opinion,  due,  in  cer¬ 
tain  instances,  to  lack  of  knowledge  as  to  funda¬ 
mental  principles. 

Some  of  these  queries  have  been  started  anew 
through  inquiries  recently  propounded  by  certain 
bishops  in  Asia,  at  a  meeting  held  in  Singapore, 
in  the  Straits  Settlements,  on  March  15,  1922. 

These  bishops  who  were  from  Korea,  China, 
and  various  parts  of  India,  at  this  gathering  pre¬ 
pared  and  adopted  “a  communication  to  the 
Board  of  Bishops  at  home,”  thus  noting  a  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  church  at  home  and  the  missions 
abroad,  and,  at  the  same  time,  raising  important 
questions  that  should  be  considered  by  “the 

9 


PREFACE 


Board  of  Bishops  at  home,”  and  also  by  the  entire 
church. 

The  present  book  contains  a  discussion  of 
points  involved  in  the  relation  between  The  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  and  its  foreign  missions,  and  also  of 
points  which  relate  to  the  essential  organism  of  the 
denomination. 

It  has  been  for  many  years  the  duty  and  pleas¬ 
ure  of  the  writer  to  study  the  history  and  laws  of 
the  church,  and  also,  as  a  bishop,  to  interpret  the 
law,  but  in  this  book  he  is  not  giving  an  ex  cathe¬ 
dra  opinion,  or  a  formal  official  decision  on  the 
law  points  involved,  or  speaking  for  the  Board  of 
Bishops,  but  submitting  his  own  personal  judg¬ 
ment.  The  facts  and  arguments  will  speak  for 
themselves. 

Thomas  B.  Neely. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

November  22,  1922. 


10 


A  SYLLABUS  OF  CHAPTERS 


c 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

In  1784,  a  new  claimant  among  the  churches — Or¬ 
ganizing  Conference  in  Baltimore — Christmas  time — 
Unheralded — Troopers  from  Perry  Hall — The  Lovely 
Lane  Chapel — The  new  denomination  was  an  Episco¬ 
pal  Church — The  Church  of  England  had  departed — 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  not  come — The 
new  Episcopal  Church  was  named  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — Its  relation  to  John  Wesley — The 
Articles  of  Religion  and  the  Service  Book — Wesley’s 
direct  representative  was  Thomas  Coke,  D.  C.  L. 
— Preceding  the  organization  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  was  an  organized  religious  body  from 
which  it  evolved — The  formation  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church — The  Reverend  Samuel  Seabury,  of 
Connecticut — Secured  Scotch  non-juring  consecration 
as  bishop  in  November,  1784 — In  September  Wesley 
had  set  apart  Doctor  Thomas  Coke,  and  named  Francis 
Asbury,  as  superintendents,  or  bishops — Wesley  was 
the  supreme  head  of  all  Methodism,  but  the  American 
Methodists,  in  their  Conference,  organized  themselves 
— The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  two  bishops 
before  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  one  in 
America — Doctor  William  White,  of  Philadelphia,  and 
Doctor  Provoost,  of  New  York,  were  consecrated  for 
the  latter  church  on  February  4,  1787 — Book  of  Com¬ 
mon  Prayer  for  latter  Church  was  adopted  in  1789 — 
The  Wesley  service  book  called  “The  Sunday  service,” 
etc.,  was  adopted  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

13 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


in  1784 — Wesley  meant  that  reorganized  American 
Methodism  should  be  as  like,  and  as  different  from,  the 
Church  of  England,  as  his  Articles  of  Religion  and  his 
Service  Book,  were  as  like,  and  as  different  from,  the 
Anglican  Articles  and  the  English  Book  of  Common 
Prayer — Small  numbers  at  the  beginning  of  the 
churches — The  Wesleyan  Societies  in  America  did  not 
withdraw  from  the  Church  of  England  or  the  Protest¬ 
ant  Episcopal  Church — They  had  not  belonged — Origin 
and  resemblances  of  the  new  Churches — The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  resembled  the  Primitive  Apostolic 
Church — Growth  of  the  new  Church — The  marvelous 
growth,  work,  and  success  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — Leonard  Woolsey  Bacon — New  Problems. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH 

To  know  essential  nature  of  a  church  requires  a 
knowledge  of  its  history  and  its  organization — The 
past  explains  the  present — Constitutional  principles 
and  governmental  contracts  are  fundamental — More 
sacred  and  binding  in  a  church — Disregarded  means 
disaster — The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  no  excep¬ 
tion — The  philosophy  of  the  ecclesiastical  system — 
Faulty  phrases — “ A  world-church” — Not  a  universal 
ecclesiasticism — Repellent  to  the  spirit  of  liberty — A 
world-church  means  a  church  governed  by  the  world — 
No  essential  change  in  the  church — Essential  nature 
cannot  be  changed  by  a  passing  emotion — Sending  the 
Gospel  to  remote  peoples  does  not  revolutionize  the 
organic  nature — A  foreign  mission  does  not  mean  that 
it  shall  govern  the  mother  church  or  that  it  shall  for- 

14 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ever  govern  the  mission — Racial,  political,  and  local 
rights  must  be  regarded — Wesley,  sending  his  first  mis¬ 
sionaries  to  the  English  Colonies,  meant  an  American 
movement — Richard  Boardman  and  Joseph  Pilmoor 
were  sent  to  “America” — The  Colonies  were  spoken  of 
as  “America”  and  the  people  as  “Americans” — The 
work  was  in  America  and  for  America — The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  grew  out  of  these  American  Societies 
— Their  reorganization  was  in  1784 — Wesley’s  Cir¬ 
cular  Letter — Testimonial  letter  to  the  Reverend 
Thomas  Coke,  D.  C.  L.— All  was  done  to  make  an  Amer¬ 
ican  church  for  America — Title  page  of  Wesley’s  “Sun¬ 
day  Service” — The  title  of  the  church  at  its  formation 
was  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America” — 
America  is  repeated  over  and  over  again — Respond¬ 
ing  to  the  address  of  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury,  Presi¬ 
dent  Washington  called  the  new  Church  “The  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer¬ 
ica” — America  and  the  United  States  of  America  meant 
the  same — The  full  title  of  the  nation  was  put  into 
legal  forms  like  the  “Chartered  Fund”  and  the  “Deed 
of  Settlement”  and  the  full  title  of  the  church,  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,”  remains  in  title  deeds  to  vast  amounts  of 
property — The  varied  title  phrasing  always  meant  the 
same  thing — Wesley,  Coke,  Asbury  and  others  used 
varying  expressions  hut  meant  the  same  country 
— Complete  title  in  General  Conference  Journals — 
— Other  denominations  used  in  their  titles  the 
full  name  of  the  nation — To  be  an  American 
church  means  much — The  full  title  should  be 
used  when  exactness  is  needed,  and  generally 
— There  is  only  one  “United  States  of  America”  and 
there  is  only  one  “Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America” — The  new  Church  empha- 

15 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


sized  its  Americanism  by  severing  all  ecclesiastical  de¬ 
pendence  on  Wesley  and  British  Wesleyanism — The 
actions  of  1784  and  1787 — That  it  was  an  American 
church  and  “in  the  United  States  of  America”  is  con¬ 
clusively  shown  by  its  recognition  of  the  nation  and  its 
government  in  its  XXIII  Article  of  Religion — This 
was  adopted  at  the  beginning  in  1784  and  remains  the 
same — It  is  a  church  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


CHAPTER  III 
FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

Christ's  missionary  command,  “Go  ye  into  all  the 
world  and  preach” — The  obedience  of  the  primitive 
Church — The  Christian  Church  has  never  utterly  for¬ 
gotten — Methodism  with  its  evangelistic  spirit  had  the 
missionary  impulse — The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
likewise,  first  in  the  United  States,  then  went  beyond — 
Garrettson  and  Cromwell  to  Nova  Scotia — Lambert  to 
Antigua — In  Canada — Foreign  Missions  did  not  de¬ 
stroy  the  fact  that  it  was  “The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America” — It  remained 
an  American  Church — In  1828  the  work  in  Canada  be¬ 
came  independent  and  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  no  foreign  missions — In  1833  missions  in  Liberia 
— In  1836  in  South  America — In  1847  in  Foochow, 
China — Missions  in  many  lands — Statistics  of  foreign 
missions — Appropriations  in  1920 — Increase  in  1921 
— Inquiries  and  answers — A  great  and  miscellaneous 
family — Always  a  distinction  between  the  home  church 
and  the  foreign  field — The  status  remains  different — 
Home  territory  must  remain  intact — Foreign  territory 
may  be  set  off — Canada  in  1828 — Views  of  Doctor 

16 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Nathan  Bangs,  Doctor  John  Emory,  and  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference — Independence  of  Canada  conceded 
because  foreign — Situation  in  home  field  in  1844 
declared  different  by  General  Conference  of  1848 — 
Status  of  home  territory  different — The  church  was 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America”  and  cannot  alienate  its  terri¬ 
tory  in  the  said  United  States — It  is  an 
American  Church  with  missions  in  foreign  lands, 
and  because  they  are  foreign  they  have  rights  of  self- 
management  and  of  independence — They  may  seek  this 
freedom  and  the  mother  church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  may  grant  it. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CENTRAL  SEAT  OF  AUTHORITY 

With  the  home  church  and  foreign  missions,  the  ques¬ 
tion  arises  as  to  the  central  seat  of  authority — There 
must  be  a  governmental  center — So  for  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — Organized  in  the  United  States, 
its  seat  of  authority  was  in  the  United  States  of 
America — It  has  never  been  shifted  therefrom — At  first, 
as  in  1784,  the  authority  was  in  the  Conference — Then 
in  the  combined  Conferences,  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  from  1808  in  the  delegated  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  in  the  Annual  Conferences  with  their  re¬ 
served  constitutional  rights — This  was  not  changed  by 
the  fact  of  foreign  missions — They  looked  to  the  church 
in  the  United  States — The  great  Boards  were  in  the 
United  States,  the  laws  were  made  there,  the  execu¬ 
tive  power  was  centered  there,  and  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  always  met  there — Could  the  General  Confer- 

17 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


enee  meet  anywhere  else,  say  in  Calcutta  ?~—  It  cannot 
meet  outside  of  the  United  States  of  America — The 
Constitution  of  the  church,  Article  V,  Section  first, 
forbids  it — The  General  Conference  could  not  order  it 
— The  great  legal  document  of  1796  asserted  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conferences  must  meet  “in  the  United  States  of 
America” — The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  continues 
to  be  an  American  church,  and  its  seat  of  authority 
continues  to  be  located  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  the  foreign  missions  recognize  the  fact. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  BISHOPRIC  OR  SUPERINTENDENCY 

Methodist  Episcopal  Episcopacy — Wesleyan  episco¬ 
pacy — Wesley  on  episcopacy  and  apostolic  succession — 
Wesley  an  episcopos ,  or  bishop — Ecclesiastical  over- 
seership  or  clerical  superintendency — Wesley’s  superin¬ 
tendent  and  Methodist  Episcopal  bishop.  Election  of 
Coke  and  Asbury  as  superintendents,  or  bishops — Use 
of  both  titles,  “bishop”  and  “superintendent” — They 
were  “for  the  United  States” — Coke  was  a  functioning 
bishop  “when  in  the  States” — Question  “Who  are  the 
bishops  of  our  church  for  the  United  States?” — They 
were  “to  superintend  the  Methodist  connexion  in 
America,”  or  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America” — The  church  was  “in  the  United  States  of 
America,”  and  outside  of  “America,”  or  “the  United 
States  of  America,”  the  bishops  were  not  intended  to 
act  as  bishops — Wesley  exercised  “the  Episcopal  office 
of  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe” — It  was  an  Amer¬ 
ican  Church  with  Bishops  for  “the  United  States  of 
America” — The  principles  were  formulated  in  “the  plan 

18 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


of  our  itinerant  General  Superintendency” — The  plan 
was  incorporated  in  the  Constitution  of  1808,  then  of 
1900,  and  now — The  episcopacy,  styled  the  “General 
Superintendency,”  is  “itinerant”  and  “general”  and 
cannot  be  touched  by  the  General  Conference — The 
general  superintendent  bishop  cannot  be  localized  in 
any  section  in  or  out  of  the  United  States  under  the 
restrictions  of  the  Constitution — He  is  a  bishop  every¬ 
where  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  not  a  dio¬ 
cesan — Other  “United  States” — No  general  superin¬ 
tendent  bishop  could  be  located  outside  the  United 
States  of  America — Emergencies — Right  and  wrong 
use  of  the  title  “general  superintendent” — Superintend¬ 
ent,  overseer,  and  bishop,  may  mean  the  same — Cen¬ 
tury  Dictionary,  Skeat — “Bishops  and  Presbyters,” 
McClintock  and  Strong’s  Cyclopedia — Bishop  Neely’s 
Governing  Conference — Wesley’s  Circular  letter  to 
American  Methodists — The  title  “bishop”  very  expres¬ 
sive — Scotch  Reformers’  use  of  “superintendent” — 
Bishop  William  White’s  proposition — Wrong  emphasis 
on  superintendent — Change  of  presiding  elder  to  secu¬ 
lar  district  superintendent  an  error  and  an  injury — 
All  general  superintendents  have  equal  authority — The 
plan  is  for  the  United  States,  and  the  general  super- 
intendency  is  for  the  United  States  of  America. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  MISSIONARY  BISHOPRIC 

There  was  a  growing  territory  within  the  United 
States,  and  also  increasing  work  in  foreign  countries — 
The  church  had  bishops  who  were  general  superintend¬ 
ents  “for  the  United  States,”  who  could  go  anywhere 

19 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and  everywhere  in  the  United  States,  and  all  together 
could  supervise  the  whole  country,  but  who  could  not 
be  located  outside  the  United  States — It  had  been  af¬ 
firmed  that  a  general  superintendent  outside  this  coun¬ 
try  suspended  his  episcopal  functions — Bishop  Coke — 
Had  to  be  in  the  United  States  of  America — The  “plan” 
prohibited  the  localizing  of  a  general  superintendent 
in  the  home  church — Also  prohibited  his  localization  in 
any  foreign  field — The  law  prohibited  and  the  condi¬ 
tions  pronounced  against  it — The  home  field  was  homo¬ 
geneous  and  a  general  superintendent  might  work  in 
any  section — In  the  foreign  fields  the  differences  of 
race,  language,  and  usages  prevented  such  a  promis¬ 
cuous  episcopacy — A  bishop  fit  for  one  place  probably 
would  not  be  fit  for  another — The  general  superintend¬ 
ent  bishops  were  for  immediate  oversight  in  the  United 
States,  where  was  located  the  seat  of  authority — It  was 
felt  that  the  growing  mission  work  in  foreign  lands 
needed  some  kind  of  direct  episcopal  supervision — As 
the  general  superintendency  could  not  be  used  there, 
the  church  sought  some  other  kind  of  episcopacy — 
Doctor  John  M.  Reid  and  Doctor  John  T.  Gracey  in 
“Methodist  Episcopal  Missions” — A  missionary  episco¬ 
pacy  was  devised — In  1856  an  amendment  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  was  proposed  by  the  General  Conference  per¬ 
mitting  missionary  bishops — This  was  duly  adopted  by 
the  church — A  peculiar  omission — Its  correction — 
Bishop  William  L.  Harris — Doctor  David  Sherman — 
Bishop  Edward  G.  Andrews — Bishop  Neely’s  “Govern¬ 
ing  Conference” — Missionary  Bishops  were  elected  and 
consecrated — In  1858  Bishop  Francis  Burns,  and  in 
1866,  Bishop  John  Wright  Roberts,  colored  bishops  for 
Liberia — Now  two  kinds  of  episcopacy,  the  general 
superintendency  for  the  home  field,  and  the  missionary 
episcopacy  for  the  foreign  field — A  wise  adaptation  for 

20 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


home  and  foreign  work — A  new  interest  in  1884 — 
Bishop  William  Taylor  elected  “Missionary  Bishop  of 
Africa’7 — Misconceptions  as  to  status — Subject  in  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  of  1888 — Before  Committee  on  Episco¬ 
pacy,  Doctor  William  H.  Olin,  chairman — Writer  made 
chairman  of  Sub-committee  on  Missionary  Bishopric — 
Wrote  the  report — Represented  Committee  on  Episco¬ 
pacy  before  the  General  Conference — Points  presented 
— Status  of  missionary  episcopacy  made  plain,  Report 
adopted — Doctor  James  M.  Thobum  elected  missionary 
bishop  for  India  in  1888 — In  1896,  Doctor  Joseph  C. 
Hartzell  elected  missionary  bishop  for  Africa — They 
‘  demonstrated  the  effectiveness  of  the  missionary  episco¬ 
pacy.  General  Conferences  pronounced  it  to  be  the 
proper  and  constitutional  episcopacy  for  foreign  fields, 
and  that  the  general  superintendency  was  not — The 
Third  Restrictive  Rule  declares  it  at  the  present  time 
— The  general  superintendency  must  remain  as  it  was, 
and  unchanged  by  the  General  Conference,  but  mission¬ 
ary  bishops  may  be  elected  for,  and  sent  to,  foreign 
missions — Personal  Note. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  BOARD  OF  BISHOPS 

Episcopacy  is  in  the  essential  nature  of  The  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  and  was  in  the  previous  society 
organization — Protected  by  the  Constitution — Always 
has  been  a  body  of  bishops  and  this  by  constitutional 
and  organic  right — As  soon  as  there  were  bishops  there 
was  an  episcopal  body  as  part  of  the  organism — A 
body  composed  of  equals — There  are  three  classes,  the 
laity,  the  Conference  ministry,  and  the  episcopacy — Out 

21 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


of  the  laity  comes  the  Annual  Conference  ministry — 
Out  of  this  Conference  ministry  comes  the  episcopacy 
— The  layman  is  lifted  into  the  Annual  Conference, 
and  the  bishop  is  taken  from  the  Annual  Conference 
and  placed  in  the  body  of  the  bishops — Under  “the 
plan,”  this  episcopal  body  has  its  own  constitutional 
functions — The  General  Conference  is  not  mentioned  in 
this  graduated  classification  because  of  its  delegated, 
temporary,  and  changing  nature — Bodies  of  bishops 
have  different  titles  in  different  denominations — In 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  the  episcopal  body  has 
been  known  as  “The  Bishops”  and  more  recently  “The 
Board  of  Bishops” — Just  the  same  as  before  it  was 
called  a  “Board” — The  episcopal  body  arranges  the 
episcopal  work  for  itself  and  its  members — The  duties 
of  the  bishops — Bishop  Simpson  in  “Cyclopaedia  of 
Methodism” — The  “Bishops’  Conferences,”  Spring  and 
Fall — The  Members  of  the  “Board  of  Bishops” — The 
Board  meets  in  the  United  States  of  America — The 
common  law  before  there  was  any  written  constitution 
— It  was  a  part  of  “the  plan” — Discipline  shows  it 
must  meet  “in  the  United  States” — Same  principle  as 
Constitution  requires  the  General  Conference  to  meet 
in  this  country — The  Board  has  a  relation  to  the 
foreign  missions — The  foreign  missions  have  always 
recognized  the  Board  of  Bishops  as  authoritative — 
Questions  raised  by  bishops  in  foreign  lands — Cannot 
have  other  boards  of  bishops — The  church  is  one  and 
can  have  only  one  Board  of  Bishops— Other  boards 
would  make  confusion  and  division — The  episcopacy  is 
a  unit — Practical  difficulties — However  bishops  in  each 
definite  foreign  field  may  come  together  in  their  field 
for  consultation — Not  bishops  of  all  fields — For  ex¬ 
ample  Asia  with  a  number  of  distinctly  defined  fields 
— The  Board  of  Bishops  in  the  United  States  of 

22 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


America  is  one  of  the  great  bodies  in  the  constitutional 
economy  of  the  church. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
PRESENT  CONSIDERATIONS 

The  present  we  may  perceive — With  the  facts  of  the 
present  and  the  past  we  may  forecast  the  future — So 
in  Church  affairs — Thus  in  the  matter  of  home  work 
and  foreign  missions — Still  there  is  much  uncertainty 
— In  the  unknown  we  would  penetrate,  and  where  no 
path  has  been  opened,  we  need  a  compass — We  need 
sound  principles — The  past  and  present  furnish  us  with 
guiding  facts — So  as  to  the  future  of  foreign  missions — 
Experience,  even  in  failure,  has  value — The  old  is  not 
to  be  discarded  because  it  is  old — We  must  “hold  fast 
to  that  which  is  good” — Mere  impulse,  rashness,  and 
wild  enthusiasm  are  to  be  avoided — Think-fests  are 
more  needed  than  talk-fests — The  right  relation  of  the 
home  church  to  the  foreign  mission,  and  of  the  foreign 
mission  to  the  home  church  should  be  accurately  de¬ 
termined — The  church  at  home  was  first,  and  with 
foreign  missions  it  has  never  lost  its  entity — The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  the  same  with  or  with¬ 
out  missions  abroad — With  Canada  and  with¬ 
out  Canada ;  with  Japan  and  without  Japan — The 
home  church  was  and  is  the  primary  thing — The 
home  church  must  preserve  its  independence,  and  so 
may  the  time  come  when  the  foreign  mission  may 
become  independent — The  home  church  must  be  main¬ 
tained  in  strength — Financial  demands  must  be  judi¬ 
cious — The  church  may  appeal  but  not  tax — Over- 
stimulation  tends  to  exhaustion — Driving  and  drain- 

23 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ing  may  not  bring  the  best  final  results — All  the 
machinery  of  the  home  church  may  not  be  needed  in 
the  foreign  fields — The  home  Boards — Suggestion  of 
some  bishops  in  Asia — Answer  of  the  editor  of  the 
Pacific  Christian  Advocate — What  is  “international 
solidarity”  ? — Washington  and  Woodrow  Wilson — 
Bishop  Neely’s  The  League  the  Nation’s  Danger — 
Huge  Annual  Conferences  no  argument — The  world¬ 
wide  idea  faulty — The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
remains  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  with  foreign  missions 
or  without  them — Tinkering  with  Connectional  Boards 
is  dangerous — Each  cause  should  have  its  own  appeal 
— Bonds  that  bind  the  home  church  and  the  foreign 
missions  are  the  Foreign  Mission  Boards — They 
are  the  channels  of  communication — They  do  for  the 
foreign  fields  all  that  the  home  boards  do  for  the  home 
church — Instead  of  destroying  the  distinctions,  the 
distinction  between  the  home  church  and  the  foreign 
mission  fields  should  be  preserved  in  all  its  distinctive¬ 
ness. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  FUTURE  OF  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

Their  ultimate  independence  is  predicted — If  it 
comes,  it  should  be  orderly  and  fraternal — Tendencies 
are  indicated — For  example  in  Japan — In  the  early 
independence  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — So 
Canada — Others  may  follow  these  examples — The 
natural  desire  for  self-government — Present  assertive¬ 
ness  and  uprisings — India,  Egypt,  and  other  countries 
— Similar  demands  in  foreign  missions — Combinations 
within  national  lines  in  India  and  China — Differences 

24 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


from  home  church  developing — Some  due  to  local  con¬ 
ditions,  some  to  workers,  and  some  to  church  authority 
— Then  changes  of  view  in  the  home  church — Self- 
support  and  self-development  hoped  for — Questions  as 
to  delegates  to  General  Conferences  from  foreign  fields 
— Time  when  there  were  no  foreign  delegates — Inter¬ 
esting  history — New  Southern  Conferences  after  the 
Civil  War — Representation — General  Conferences  of 
1864  and  1868 — Delegates — Far-reaching  effect — The 
Reverend  John  T.  Gracey,  of  India,  first  to  sit  as  a  for¬ 
eign  representative — Question  as  to  regularity — Fear 
for  self-control  in  the  home  church— Conflicting 
fears  and  desires  at  home  and  abroad — Dangers 
in  an  ambition  for  a  world-wide  government — History 
illustrates — Colonial  wisdom  of  Great  Britain — The 
Roman  Church  copied  imperial  Rome — Cannot  be  a 
world-church  and  have  a  free  and  wholesome  govern¬ 
ment — A  world-church  cannot  remain  an  American 
church — Even  a  united  minority  may  modify  a  strong 
majority — The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  no 
divine  call  to  rule  the  ecclesiastical  world,  or  to  be 
governed  by  the  world — Assertions  of  race  and  national 
consciousness — Sometimes  fomented  by  federated,  co¬ 
ordinated,  and  union  movements — Denominationalism 
is  still  needed  in  mission  work — The  financial  bond  is 
not  enough  to  bind  even  a  beneficiary — The  child  starts 
a  new  household,  the  colony  starts  a  new  nation;  so 
the  mission  a  new  church — Reverend  George  A.  Miller’s 
views  as  to  foreign  control — Natural  and  national 
forces  assert  themselves — The  mother  church  should 
look  forward  to  developed  missions  out  of  which  will 
come  local  and  independent  churches — Practical  rea¬ 
sons — Politics  and  war — Independence  need  not  sever 
all  relationship — The  mother  church  still  could  help — 
Better  to  have  independent  and  affiliated  churches  in 

25 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


foreign  lands  within  the  bounds  of  race  or  nation — 
There  still  would  be  work  for  the  Foreign  Mission 
Society — With  one  mission  independent  other  fields 
could  be  taken  up — The  missionary  bishop  could  re¬ 
main  with  his  field — Then  there  will  be  a  great  galaxy 
of  affiliated  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches  throughout 
the  world. 


CHAPTER  X 
IN  THE  MEANTIME 

Modifications  may  be  made  to  prepare  the  foreign 
missions  for  future  possibilities  and  probabilities — So 
has  come  the  Central  Mission  Conference — The  first 
legal  provision  appeared  in  1892 — Its  purpose  and 
powers — In  1908  the  Southern  Asia  Central  Conference 
was  granted  power  to  fix  residences  for  its  missionary 
bishops — Slightly  modified  in  1916  and  so  remains  in 
1920 — Striking  changes  were  made  in  other  parts  of 
the  law  in  1920 — Greatly  increased  powers  given — Very 
little  more  would  make  it  a  General  Conference  for  an 
independent  church — The  mission  is  spoken  of  as  an 
“indigenous  church” — Now  six  Central  Conferences — 
The  Conferences  and  Missions  under  each  are  grouped 
in  the  Book  of  Discipline — The  main  ideas  are  right  but 
some  details  are  introduced  in  1920  wrong  and  con¬ 
tradictory — The  law  in  regard  to  the  Central  Confer¬ 
ence  is  like  a  subordinate  constitution — If  any  part 
violates  the  constitution  of  the  church  that  part  is 
null  and  void — The  General  Conference  has  no  right  to 
empower  a  subordinate  body  to  determine  terms  for 
membership  and  the  ministry — That  must  cover  the 
whole  church  and  be  by  the  whole  church — Think 
of  what  might  be  with  six  or  sixty  Central  Conferences 

26 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

making  different  and  conflicting  regulations ! — The 
General  Conference  has  no  right  to  empower  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Conference,  or  any  other  body,  to  establish  rites 
and  to  make  a  ritual  or  to  translate  into  the  vernacular 
such  parts  of  the  church  ritual  as  it  may  desire — That 
means  it  may  omit  and  discard  any  part  it  pleases — 
The  General  Conference  has  no  right  to  authorize  the 
Central  Conference  to  modify  any  Article  of  Religion 
— It  cannot  do  so  itself — The  ruined  Ritual  of  1916  is 
recalled — Loose  legislation  is  dangerous  and  disruptive 
— The  provision  for  making  courses  of  study  for  the 
ministry  conflicts  with  the  work  of  the  General  Com¬ 
mission  on  Courses  of  Study  as  set  forth  in  the  Disci¬ 
pline — It  is  confusing — There  might  be  six  or  sixty 
differing  courses  in  the  foreign  fields — The  bishops  who 
are  to  approve — Corrected,  the  Central  Mission  Con¬ 
ference  may  prove  to  be  the  very  organism  needed — 
With  more  and  proper  home  rule  through  the  Central 
Conference  the  mission  would  not  need  to  send  dele¬ 
gates,  or  as  many  of  them  to  the  United  States — This 
would  help  satisfy  those  who  cry  for  reduced  expense — 
This  would  intensify  local  development — This  is  sim¬ 
pler  and  safer  than  the  plan  of  “Regional  Jurisdictions 
in  Foreign  Countries,”  reported  in  the  intricate  scheme 
presented  by  the  Commission  on  Unification — Gradual 
training  with  ultimate  independence  is  infinitely 
better. 

CHAPTER  XI 

THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1920 

The  General  Conference  of  1920  did  three  remarkable 
things :  elected  no  missionary  bishops,  transformed  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops  into  general  superintendents,  elected 

27 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


an  unusually  large  number  of  general  superintendents, 
and  sent  many  of  them  to  be  residents  in  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields — Missionary  bishops  were  permanent 
bishops  in  foreign  fields,  where  time  was  an  important 
element — Made  general  superintendents  they  could  be 
taken  from  the  foreign  mission  and  placed  in  the 
United  States  where  their  special  knowledge  and  unique 
experience  would  be  thrown  away — The  ordinary  gen¬ 
eral  superintendent  had  no  such  preparation  for  for¬ 
eign  missionary  work — When  he  did  learn  he  could  be 
brought  back  to  the  United  States  where  this  acquired 
knowledge  was  not  needed — The  Constitution,  law,  and 
usage  intended  all  general  superintendents  for  the 
United  States — The  missionary  episcopacy  was  created 
because  the  general  superintendent  could  not  consti¬ 
tutionally  be  located  in  a  foreign  country — That  is  the 
law  to-day — The  missionary  episcopacy  is  a  noble  form 
of  the  episcopate  and  has  been  a  great  success — Think 
of  Bishop  William  Taylor  and  Bishop  Joseph  C.  Hart- 
zell  in  Africa,  and  Bishop  James  M.  Thoburn  in  India, 
and  the  other  missionary  bishops — This  does  not  mean 
that  general  superintendents  cannot  do  and  have  not 
done  monumental  work — Bishop  Bashford  and  Bishop 
Lewis  will  be  recalled,  but  they  practically  made  them¬ 
selves  missionary  bishops  by  clinging  to  their  field  in 
China — If  they  had  had  the  previous  training  of  Bishop 
Thoburn  on  the  foreign  mission  field,  they  might  have 
done  even  better,  and  they  might  have  done  better  in 
the  United  States — The  general  superintendents  are 
for  and  adapted  to  the  United  States;  the  missionary 
bishops  are  for  and  adapted  to  the  foreign  mission 
fields — It  may  be  said  that  the  General  Conference 
has  assigned  general  superintendents  to  foreign  fields 
— It  never  did  before  1900,  when  it  sent  Bishop  John 
H.  Vincent  to  Europe  and  Bishop  David  H.  Moore  to 

28 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


China — But  the  Constitution  is  superior  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference — A  mistake  or  a  violation  of  law  by 
that  body  does  not  make  a  binding  precedent,  or  change 
the  Constitution — The  judgment  of  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  is  not  final;  finality  is  with  the  whole  church 
that  makes  the  Constitution — The  church  had  foreign 
work  when  it  made  the  Constitution  and  knew  general 
superintendents  could  not  be  located  abroad — The 
Constitution  remains  the  same,  and  according  to  “the 
plan”  the  Board  of  Bishops  assigns  each  bishop  to  his 
work — It  was  a  fundamental  error  to  locate  general 
superintendents  in  foreign  mission  fields — Now  diffi¬ 
culties  arise  in  Asia — The  cause  of  the  confusion  is 
clear — Correct  the  error  and  the  commotion  will  dis¬ 
appear — The  missionary  episcopacy  still  exists,  and  is 
guarded  by  the  law  and  the  Constitution — The  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  cannot  destroy  it — The  church  should 
sustain  and  honor  it — The  Constitution  must  be  main¬ 
tained — So-called  Negro  General  Superintendents. 


CHAPTER  XII 
EXPERT  EVIDENCE 

General  facts  and  arguments  are  sufficient — Besides 
there  is  personal  testimony  along  main  lines  from  those 
who  have  had  and  met  the  tests  of  direct  experience — 
There  is  expert  evidence  from  one  who  knows  the 
United  States  and  foreign  mission  fields — Bishop  Wil¬ 
liam  F.  Oldham,  pastor  in  the  United  States,  mission¬ 
ary,  missionary  bishop,  missionary  secretary,  and  gen¬ 
eral  superintendent — His  article  on  “Bishops  for  For¬ 
eign  Areas” — Supports  the  missionary  bishopric — 
Refers  to  Bishops  Thoburn  and  Hartzell — Weighty 

29 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


words  from  one  of  ripe  experience— The  native  field 
recognizes  its  needs  and  rights— The  general  superin¬ 
tendency  not  so  well  adapted — Drawbacks — Bishops 
Bashford  and  Lewis  were  exceptional — Questions 
against  sending  general  superintendents  “to  reside  in 
foreign  countries  where  they  have  had  no  previous 
experience” — “Change  of  the  methods  of  electing  and 
appointing  bishops  becomes  a  matter  for  serious  con¬ 
sideration” — Lack  of  special  “knowledge  of  peoples  and 
variant  civilizations”  a  grave  disadvantage — Chances 
uow  are  against  the  choice  of  bishops  from  those  with 
actual  missionary  experience — Growing  racial  con¬ 
sciousness  in  our  foreign  churches — A  general  super¬ 
intendency  exchangeable  between  the  home  church  and 
the  foreign  missions  cannot  meet  the  conditions  or 
satisfy  the  peoples — The  peculiarities  of  the  foreign 
field  require  peculiar  treatment  that  can  be  best  given 
by  the  missionary  bishop — “National  Churches”  in  the 
foreign  field — In  the  United  States  the  home  church; 
in  the  foreign  mission  the  offspring — There  is  a  distinc¬ 
tion  in  law  and  fact — The  distinction  should  be  main¬ 
tained — The  missionary  episcopacy  marks  the  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  home  and  the  foreign  field. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  DENOMINATIONAL  MISSION 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  established 
many  foreign  missions — Hopes  to  do  its  share — Has 
contributed  vast  sums — The  centenary  of  its  missionary 
society — Phenomenal  results — Efforts  to  Christianize 
but  not  to  rule  the  world — For  many  missions  it  is 
the  mother  church — Expects  her  foreign  fields  to  be 

30 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


managed  according  to  Methodist  Episcopal  ideas-—  ID 
foreign  missions  are  to  be  duplications  of  itself — Right 
and  wrong  kinds  of  cooperation — Denominational  work 
must  be  done  in  a  denominational  way — Question  as 
to  unionized  schools — Religious  and  theological — The 
home  church  must  be  vigorous  and  spiritual — It  should 
have  stability — Must  be  sympathetic  toward  the  mis¬ 
sion  but  firm  in  management — The  church  is  to  go  with 
the  gospel  but  not  to  stay  and  rule  the  world — It  is  to 
go  on — It  must  preserve  its  entity  and  identity  as  an 
American  church — It  remains  “The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.” 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  NEXT  STEP  NOT  A  FALSE  STEP 

The  organic  relation  between  the  home  church  and 
its  foreign  missions  is  producing  a  new  literature — 
“The  Next  Step” — Reverend  Paul  Hutchinson — Dis¬ 
cusses  the  next  step  for  the  church  to  take — Shows  the 
unrest  in  the  missions  and  the  trend  toward  independ¬ 
ence — Japan  an  example — Professor  I.  J.  Fleming — Is 
the  church  committed  to  a  policy? — Should  it  be  for  an 
international  world  wide  church? — Should  it  follow  the 
example  of  Rome,  or  Britain,  or  should  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  become  independent? — The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  preserve  its  entity  as  an  American 
church — Statistics  show  the  foreign  missions  are  de¬ 
veloping  ability  to  support  themselves — Strictures 
upon  church  service  and  doctrinal  formulations — 
Would  make  the  missions  unMethodistic — Wesley  mis¬ 
quoted  and  misrepresented — Had  theological  views  and 
demanded  religious  beliefs  from  others — Especially 

31 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

from  his  preachers  and  people — A  church  must  have 
one  constitution  for  all — Cannot  have  different  parts 
holding  different  vital  doctrines  in  opposition — A 
world-wide  international  church  must  end  in  disaster 
— If  the  foreign  missions  should  be  freed  from  “long 
distance  control”  then  the  home  church  should  not  be 
under  their  control — An  international  and  world-wide 
church  would  mean  “long  distance  control”  for  all — 
Bishop  Thoburn  favored  self-government  for  foreign 
missions — A  world- wide  church  would  injure  the 
church  in  the  United  States  and  would  injure  the  for¬ 
eign  missions — Would  not  satisfy  nationalistic  ambi¬ 
tions — Would  be  unworkable — The  true  outcome  will 
be  the  self-government,  or  independence  of  the  foreign 
mission,  and  the  preservation  of  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  as  an  in¬ 
dependent  American  church — Anything  else  would  be  a 
false  step. 


32 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


CHAPTER  I 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Toward  the  close  of  the  year  1784  there  ap¬ 
peared  a  new  claimant  for  a  place  among  the 
many  churches  that  already  existed.  It  had  a 
calm  consciousness  of  its  right  to  be,  hut  its  ap¬ 
pearance  was  made  with  marked  modesty.  It  was 
organized  in  the  then  little  town  of  Baltimore, 
and  during  the  Christmas  week  of  that  year.  The 
coming  had  not  been  announced  with  a  blare  of 
trumpets,  and  the  newspaper  pages  had  not  been 
filled  with  bold  advertisements  calling  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  public  to  the  momentous  occasion. 
Baltimore  itself  did  not  appreciate  the  honor  that 
was  being  thrust  upon  it.  Some  may  have  won¬ 
dered  at  the  little  cavalcade  that  one  morning 
rode  into  the  city  from  the  mansion  called  Perry 
Hall,  a  short  distance  out  of  town,  and  others 
with  a  momentary  interest  may  have  noticed  a 
number  of  staid-looking  men  who  wended  their 
way  to  and  from  a  little  chapel  in  Lovely  Lane, 
though  the  open  door  may  have  suggested  that 
some  religious  event  was  in  progress.  Some  may 
have  recalled  that  they  had  seen  a  few  of  these 
preacher-like  men,  but  most  of  them  were  strang¬ 
ers  from  a  distance  and  from  all  points  of  the 
compass.  It  was  in  that  little  Lovely  Lane  Chapel 
that  the  new  denomination  was  organized  in  that 

35 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Christmas  time  of  seventeen  hundred  and  eighty- 
four. 

Newspaper  men  from  all  parts  of  the  land  were 
not  present  and  on  the  alert  to  be  the  first  to 
herald  the  birth  of  a  new  ecclesiasticism,  for  there 
were  not  many  enterprising  journals,  and  few,  if 
any,  of  the  editors  knew  what  was  about  to  tran¬ 
spire.  When  the  event  did  take  place  the  telegraph 
did  not,  with  lightning  rapidity,  spread  the  news 
far  and  wide  over  the  land,  for  the  telegraph  did 
not  yet  exist,  and  had  not  been  dreamed  of.  A 
little  local  company  knew,  and  a  few  more,  and 
then  it  was  slowly  and  surely  spread  by  the  post, 
and  by  those  itinerant  preachers,  as  they  rode 
away  in  all  directions  to  their  distant  circuits. 
They  told,  and  those  who  heard  them  told  others, 
and  then  the  press  began  to  impress  and  publish 
it,  and  after  awhile  the  cities,  the  towns,  the  vil¬ 
lages,  the  sparsely  settled  country,  and  the  new 
frontier  beyond  the  mountains  got  to  know  that 
there  was  another  church;  and  a  little  later  the 
whole  world  knew.  It  seemed  a  humble  beginning, 
but  it  was  one  of  the  worlds  great  events. 

The  new  denomination  was  to  be  an  Episcopal 
Church,  and  they  so  named  it,  and  the  records 
state  that  the  organizers  formed  an  independent 
Episcopal  Church.  It  was  to  be  an  Episcopal 
Church  but  not  quite  like  some  bodies  that  called 
themselves  by  that  title.  It  was  a  time  for  reor¬ 
ganization  in  the  nation  and  among  religious 
bodies.  The  struggle  for  national  independence 
had  been  a  great  strain  throughout  the  States 

36 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


which  had  been  British  colonies,  but  now  the  War 
of  the  Revolution  was  over,  and,  just  the  year  be¬ 
fore,  Great  Britain  had  recognized  “The  United 
States  of  America. 7  ’  With  the  independence  of 
the  country  the  Church  of  England  had  disap¬ 
peared,  and,  before  that,  a  large  proportion  of  its 
clergy  had  departed  from  the  country.  The 
Church  of  England  had  gone,  but  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  had  not  come,  but  the  remains 
of  the  old  State  Church  of  England  were  inquir¬ 
ing  as  to  what  was  best  to  be  done. 

The  organizers  of  the  new  church  in  1784  made 
an  Episcopal  Church,  but  to  show  that  it  was  not 
just  the  same  as  the  Church  of  England,  and  to 
distinguish  it  from  other  Episcopal  Churches, 
they  prefixed  the  word  “Methodist”  to  “Episco¬ 
pal,”  and  so  made  it  “The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,”  which  meant  that  it  was  to  be  an  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  of  the  Methodist,  or  Wesleyan  kind. 
This  showed  its  derivation  and  linked  it  with  the 
great  evangelistic  and  ecclesiastical  leader,  The 
Reverend  John  Wesley. 

This  relation  of  the  new  Church  to  the  great 
Wesley  was  very  direct.  Followers  of  Wesley 
came  to  America  and  soon  began  to  hold  religious 
exercises  and  form  societies  such  as  he  had  organ¬ 
ized  in  the  British  Islands.  Then  Wesley  sent 
missionaries  to  America,  and  preachers  increased, 
congregations  were  gathered,  and  religious  socie¬ 
ties  were  formed  in  many  parts  of  the  country, 
and  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  church  was 
evolved,  the  only  thing  lacking  being  an  ordained 

37 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ministry.  The  independence  of  the  United  States 
having  been  recognized,  Wesley  provided  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  an  ordained  ministry,  Articles  of  Re¬ 
ligion,  and  a  service  book,  and  sent  to  America, 
as  his  personal  representative,  the  Reverend 
Thomas  Coke,  a  graduate  of  Oxford,  and  a  Doctor 
of  Civil  Law  of  the  same  university,  and  the  reor¬ 
ganization  of  the  American  societies  as  a  complete 
church  was  effected. 

This  was  prior  to  the  formation  of  the  Protes¬ 
tant  Episcopal  Church.  The  Protestant  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  came  up  from  the  fragments  of  the 
Church  of  England  that  remained  after  the  old 
Church  of  England  had  departed  from  the  new 
nation,  and  these  remnants  were  scattered 
throughout  the  States  and  were  without  any  gen¬ 
eral  control  or  unified  government. 

On  the  other  hand,  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  the  transformation  of  a  preexisting 
and  organized  religious  body  which  had  a  connec- 
tional  government  covering  the  States  generally, 
and  everywhere  a  unity  with  a  central  body  called 
a  Conference,  and  a  personal  head  who  directed 
the  movements  of  the  whole  body.  It  had  preach¬ 
ers  and  places  for  service,  with  a  recorded  mem¬ 
bership,  and  besides  an  efficient  polity,  it  had  well- 
settled  doctrines  which  were  not  only  preached 
and  taught  but  also  printed,  that  the  public  might 
read  and  understand.  So  before  it  became  a  com¬ 
plete  church  it  stood  forth  a  compact  religious  or¬ 
ganization,  with  its  own  creed,  with  its  preachers, 
with  a  thorough  and  working  economy,  with  its 

38 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


unified  system  of  government,  and  a  recognized 
supervising  head.  All  this  it  had  before  it  became 
a  complete  church  in  1784,  so  it  did  not  come  out 
of  chaos,  and  it  was  not  an  untested  ecclesiastical 
mechanism.  It  was  in  working  condition,  and  had 
been  for  years  and  it  needed  very  little  more  for 
it  to  go  on  as  a  working  church. 

The  first  meeting  of  those  who  had  been  in  the 
Church  of  England,  that  approached  what  might 
be  understood  as  a  general  convention,  was  held 
in  Philadelphia,  in  September  and  October,  1785, 
but  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  already 
been  organized  in  the  previous  year,  about  eight 
months  before.  At  that  meeting  there  were  pres¬ 
ent  sixteen  clergymen  and  twenty-six  laymen 
from  seven  States. 

The  next  convention  was  held  in  Philadelphia 
on  the  twentieth  of  June,  1786,  when  ten  of  the 
clergy  and  eleven  laymen  were  present,  and  in 
that  convention  there  was  agreed  upon  “A  Gen¬ 
eral  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.”  This 
was  finally  ratified  in  the  Convention  of  1789.1 

The  clergy  and  laity  in  the  State  of  Con¬ 
necticut  selected  the  Reverend  Doctor  Samuel 
Seabury  to  be  bishop,  and  he  went  to  England,  to 
secure  consecration  from  the  bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England,  but  failing  to  secure  conse¬ 
cration  in  the  line  of  the  English  succession,  he 
turned  to  the  Scotch  non-juring  bishops,  and  by 

‘Bird  Wilson,  D.D.:  Life  of  Bishop  White ,  Philadelphia, 
1839,  p.  106. 


39 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


them  was  consecrated  in  November,  1784;  but 
about  two  months  before  that,  in  September,  Wes¬ 
ley  had  set  apart  the  Reverend  Doctor  Thomas 
Coke,  and  had  named  him  and  Francis  Asbury  to 
be  superintendents,  or  bishops,  for  the  new  or¬ 
ganization  in  America.  Wesley  was  the  Supreme 
head  of  all  Methodism  and  whatever  he  did  was 
considered  final ;  but  the  American  Methodists,  in 
their  own  Conference  in  December,  1784,  organ¬ 
ized  themselves  and  elected  Coke  and  Asburv 
bishops.  With  that,  personal  control  passed  into 
Conference  government. 

Bishop  Seabury  had  back  of  him  his  co-religion¬ 
ists  of  his  own  state,  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  the  United  States  had  not  yet  taken  full 
form.  Some  questioned  the  validity  of  his  con¬ 
secration,  as  he  was  not  consecrated  by  the  regular 
English  bishops,  but  he  was  recognized  as  a  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

Bishop  Seabury  returned  to  the  United  States 
in  1785,  landing  at  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  on  the 
twentieth  of  June,  and  reached  New  London,  Con¬ 
necticut,  on  the  twenty-seventh  of  the  same  month. 

In  1784,  however,  the  organizing  Conference  in 
Baltimore  had  elected  Doctor  Coke  and  Francis 
Asbury,  so  that  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  two  bishops  before  the  Protestant  Episcopal¬ 
ians  had  one  bishop  in  the  United  States. 

Later  Doctor  William  White,  of  Philadelphia, 
and  Doctor  Provoost,  of  New  York,  were  selected 
for  the  episcopate  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  They  went  to  England,  and,  on  Sunday, 

40 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


February  4,  1787,  they  were  consecrated  by  one 
bishop  and  two  archbishops  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land. 

The  Booh  of  Common  Prayer  for  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  was  adopted  in  1789,  while  the 
Wesley  Service  Book,  called  by  him  The  Sunday 
Service  .  .  .  With  Other  Occasional  Services , 
and  which  was*  based  on  the  Booh  of  Common 
Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  adopted 
by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1784. 

Both  bodies  were  Episcopal  Churches,  and  both 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  The  Protes¬ 
tant  Episcopal  Church  were,  like  the  nation,  of 
English  descent,  and  both  came  in  the  succession 
from  the  Church  of  England,  and  Wesley  evi¬ 
dently  intended  that  his  reorganized  societies  in 
America  should  take  the  place  in  the  new  republic 
of  the  Church  of  England  which  he  understood 
had  departed  from  the  United  States.  So  he  re¬ 
vised  for  them  the  English  Prayer  Booh  and  the 
English  Articles  of  Religion,  reducing  the  thirty- 
nine  Articles  to  twenty-four. 

Wesley  meant  that  the  new  church  that  came 
from  his  reorganized  societies  in  America  should 
preserve  characteristics  of  the  historic  Church  of 
England,  and  he  meant  that  the  new  church  should 
be  as  like  the  Anglican  Church,  and  as  different 
from  it,  as  his  twenty-four  Articles  of  Religion 
were  as  like,  and  as  unlike,  the  thirty-nine  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  as  his  service  book 
was  as  like,  and  as  unlike,  as  the  old  English 
Prayer  Booh ,  and  the  agreements  and  the  dis- 

41 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


agreements  are  so  marked  that  to  the  student  they 
give  a  clear  revelation  of  his  meaning. 

One  who  recalls  the  history  of  these  beginnings 
will  probably  be  impressed  by  the  comparatively 
small  number  of  persons  who  took  part  in  the 
making  of  the  new  church.  In  the  first  gathering, 
in  1785,  of  those  who  were  seeking  to  form  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  there  were  sixteen 
clergymen  and  twenty-six  laymen,  and,  in  the 
second,  in  1786,  there  were  ten  of  the  clergy  and 
eleven  of  the  laity,  while  at  the  Christmas  Con¬ 
ference  of  1784,  when  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  formed,  there  were  “  nearly  sixty 
preachers  present.  ’ n 

It  looks  small,  but  then,  we  must  remember  that 
it  is  one  man,  or  a  few  men,  by  whom  almost  every 
good  human  institution  has  been  started,  and  the 
fact  is  illustrated  by  both  these  organizations 
under  consideration. 

Now  and  then  the  statement  has  been  made  that 
the  Methodist  societies  in  America  that  formed 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  withdrew  from 
the  Church  of  England,  or  from  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  in  order  to  do  so. 

That,  however,  must  be  a  misapprehension,  for, 
when  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
formed,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  not 
yet  been  organized,  and  the  societies  could  not 
withdraw  from  that  which  had  no  existence.  Then 
the  American  Methodist  societies  could  not  with- 

^homas  B.  Neely:  The  Governing  Conference  in  Method¬ 
ism ,  New  York,  1892,  p.  261. 


42 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


draw  from  the  Church  of  England,  for  the  Eng¬ 
lish  State  Church  had  itself  withdrawn  from  the 
country  and  the  societies  could  not  withdraw  from 
that  which  was  not  there  and  which  did  not  exist 
there. 

Further,  such  a  withdrawal  of  the  societies  was 
impossible,  for  these  societies  never  belonged  to 
the  Church  of  England  and  never  were  under  its 
control.  They  were  independent,  and  no  bishop 
or  convocation  ever  exercised  authority  over  them, 
and  the  same  was  true  of  Wesley’s  societies  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  two  churches,  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
giving  their  chronological  order,  started  out  on 
their  careers  almost  at  the  same  time. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  had  among 
many  the  prestige  of  the  Church  of  England 
with  which  its  clergy  and  its  churches  had  been 
connected,  while  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
had  the  inheritance  of  the  test  of  nearly  fifty  years 
of  a  practical  and  efficient  ecclesiasticism  which 
had  been  devised  by  John  Wesley,  one  of  Oxford 
University’s  greatest  graduates,  who  was  aided 
by  some  of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  day. 
Tested  in  Great  Britain,  the  system  was  brought 
to  the  American  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Both  churches  showed  their  origin  and  revealed 
the  survival  of  their  heritage,  and  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  began  a  noble  career,  and  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  went  forth  to  un¬ 
paralleled  achievements. 

43 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


There  were  other  external  signs  that  showed  a 
common  origin.  Passing  from  a  Protestant  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  in  that  day  to  a  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church,  one  would  have  seen  the  clergy,  as  in 
the  other  church,  arrayed  in  clerical  gowns,  for 
like  Wesley  himself,  Bishop  Coke  and  Bishop 
Asbury,  and  other  preachers  of  the  young  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  wore  the  gown,  as  did  the 
clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  though  they 
did  not  in  their  attire  carry  out  all  the  Anglican 
details. 

So  in  both  churches  one  would  have  found  a 
liturgy,  the  one  using  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Book  of  Common  Prayer ,  based  upon  the  Eng¬ 
lish  Common  Prayery  and  in  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  Wesley’s  Sunday  Service ,  also 
based  upon  the  same  Church  of  England  Book  of 
Common  Prayer.  Thus,  in  Philadelphia,  if  he  had 
gone  to  Christ  Church  on  Second  Street,  and  then 
to  old  Saint  George’s,  on  Fourth  Street,  he  would 
have  found  that  the  churches  of  both  denomina¬ 
tions  had  their  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer,  and 
that  they  both  had  read  prayers. 

When  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  first 
began  to  rise  above  the  horizon,  its  light  may  have 
seemed  faint,  and  to  many  looked  so  small  that 
the  casual  observer  had  not  thought  it  possible 
that,  in  the  ecclesiastical  firmament,  it  ever  would 
rise  to  a  star  of  the  first  magnitude,  but  its  spon¬ 
sors  were  men  of  faith  who  believed  in  God  and  in 
this  church. 

To  some  the  new  church  was  a  unique  body  for 

44 


i 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


that  day,  but  it  carried  their  thoughts  back  to  the 
day  when  the  early  Church  of  Christ  met  in  the 
upper  room  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  thoughtful  ob¬ 
server  could  have  seen  that  this  young  church 
bore  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  primitive 
church  of  the  apostles  ’  time  in  doctrine,  in  general 
organization  and  in  polity,  and  especially  in  its 
simple  idea  of  the  episcopacy.  It  was  like  a  re¬ 
storation  of  the  early  church. 

The  marvelous  growth  of  this  young  church  has 
been,  and  still  is,  very  impressive.  From  its  small 
beginning  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  with 
the  other  members  of  the  Metkodistic  family,  now 
constitute  the  largest  body  of  Protestants  in  the 
United  States.  Taking  this  fact  with  its  many 
Christian  activities,  it  is  no  wonder  that  Doctor 
Leonard  Woolsey  Bacon,  of  the  Congregational 
Church,  in  his  History  of  American  Christianity 
(p.  198),  has  said:  “By  far  the  most  momentous 
event  of  American  Church  history  in  the  closing 
period  of  the  colonial  era  was  the  planting  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

In  its  career  in  the  United  States  and  in  other 
lands  the  influence  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  has  been  very  great,  and  history  will  pro¬ 
nounce  the  work  of  this  Church  a  marked  success ; 
but  every  success  brings  a  new  strain  and  starts 
new  problems.  As  a  consequence,  new  questions 
are  presented  from  time  to  time,  and  some  of  them 
we  must  attempt  to  answer. 


45 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  NATURE  GF  THE  CHURCH 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH 

When  vital  questions  relating  to  any  eeclesias- 
ticism  are  propounded  it  ought  to  be  plain  to  any 
intelligent  mind  that  they  cannot  be  properly  an¬ 
swered  without  an  accurate  understanding  of  the 
essential  nature  of  the  ecclesiastical  organism  to 
which  reference  is  made. 

This  may  mean  a  more  or  less  thorough  study 
of  the  history  of  the  body  and  an  analysis  of  its 
organization,  for  nothing  could  he  more  danger¬ 
ous  than  to  proceed  as  though  the  church  had  no 
past  and  that  in  the  present  it  was  not  bound  by 
any  principles  formulated,  or  contracts  made,  in 
that  past.  Constitution  and  contract  come  from 
the  past  and  control  in  the  present  in  all  consti¬ 
tutional  governments  whether  civil  or  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal,  and,  generally  speaking,  the  past  gives  answer 
to  questions  of  the  present. 

These  principles  are  just  as  true  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  as  of  any  other  organiza¬ 
tion,  and  more  important  to  the  church,  because  of 
its  sacred  character,  than  to  any  secular  govern¬ 
ment.  Indeed,  the  matter  of  common  honesty  in 
faithfully  keeping  the  contracts  of  constitution, 
law,  and  established  usage  applies  much  more 
strongly  to  the  church.  So  the  church  of  the 
present  is  held  under  bonds  by  the  past,  and  noth- 

49 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


thing  that  can  be  radically  changed  by  a  passing 
emotion,  or  by  a  mistake,  or  an  illegal  act,  or  by 
anything  done  in  ordinary  legislation,  and  it  may 
be  said  that  no  radical  organic  change  has  been 
made  in  the  nature  of  the  church  in  recent  times, 
and  certainly  not  for  at  least  fifty  years.  If 
preaching  the  gospel  outside  the  United  States  of 
America  makes  the  church  a  world-church  in  1923, 
then  it  was  a  world-church  in  1823,  for  at  that  date 
its  ministers  were  preaching  beyond  the  national 
boundaries  in  Canada.  But  it  takes  more  than  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  in  the  outlying  world  to 
make  a  world-church.  Some  of  the  recent  de¬ 
mands  are  based  upon  misconceptions  which  have 
grown  out  of  hasty  legislation,  or  hasty  adminis¬ 
tration  which  could  not  legally  change  the  organic 
quality  of  the  church,  and  also  from  a  forgetful¬ 
ness  of  the  fact  that  even  ordinary  legislation  can¬ 
not  change  the  nature  of  a  constitutionally  organ¬ 
ized  body.  Blunders  from  lack  of  knowledge,  or 
illegal  or  unconstitutional  acts  of  any  sort  do  not 
establish  a  binding  precedent.  Show  the  law  or 
cite  the  constitution  to  the  contrary  and  at  once 
they  fall. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  planted 
Christianity,  and  preached  the  gospel  in  various 
parts  of  the  world,  but  the  idea  that  these  growing 
foreign  missions  should  be  governed  forever  by  a 
church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  or  that 
the  church  itself  should  be  governed  by  the  for¬ 
eign  missions,  was  never  taught  and  maintained 
by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  has  been 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


denied  by  the  history  and  practice  of  the  church. 
Further,  it  is  not  only  contrary  to  sound  economic 
principles,  but  also  repugnant  to  the  natural 
rights  of  racial,  national,  and  local  consciousness. 

When  Wesley  sent  his  first  missionaries  across 
the  Atlantic  to  what  he  regarded  as  the  Southern 
colonies  of  North  America,  it  was  an  American 
movement,  and  the  very  first  entry  in  the  English 
Wesleyan  Minutes,  covering  the  assignments  of 
preachers  to  that  section  of  the  west  coast  of  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  later  called  “The  United  States 
of  America,’ ’  was  “America — Richard  Boardman 
and  Joseph  Pilmoor,”  who  were  Wesley’s  first 
missionaries  to  America. 

So  the  colonies  in  that  section  were  spoken  of  as 
“America,”  and  the  people  were  called  Ameri¬ 
cans,  even  before  the  independence  of  the  new  re¬ 
public  was  acknowledged,  before  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  was  proclaimed,  and  even  before 
the  War  of  the  Revolution.  In  the  debates  in  the 
British  Parliament,  in  those  early  times  the  in¬ 
habitants  were  referred  to  as  “The  Americans.” 
Wesley’s  mission  was  for  “America”  and  “The 
Americans,”  and  his  first  missionaries  in  this 
new  country  recognized  the  fact  that  they  were  in 
the  United  States  of  America  to  work  for  America 
and  the  Americans. 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  first  Annual  Conference 
of  the  preachers,  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
which  was  held  in  1773,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
there  is  used  the  expression  “in  America.”  Thus 
a  question  is  recorded  as  to  those  “who  labor  in 

53 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  in  America,  ’  ’  and 
there  is  a  notation  which  says  “none  of  the 
preachers  in  America/ ’  all  of  which  shows  the 
American  intention  and  character  of  the  organi¬ 
zation  which  had  been  started  by  Wesley  and  his 
followers. 

In  a  similar  way  it  can  be  shown  that  The  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church  which  grew  out  of  those 
early  societies  and  Conferences  was,  is,  and  al¬ 
ways  has  been  an  American  church.  Wesley 
shows  this,  in  a  very  marked  manner,  in  the  prepa¬ 
rations  which  he  made  for  the  reorganization  of 
the  American  societies  in  1784. 

His  circular  letter,  dated  Bristol,  (England,) 
September  10,  1784,  was  addressed  “To  Doctor 
Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North 
America.’ ’  That  he  meant  the  part  which  had 
become  independent,  is  shown  when,  in  that  letter, 
he  says:  “Many  of  the  provinces  of  North 
America  are  totally  disjoined  from  the  mother 
country.”  Then  in  the  testimonial  letter  which 
Wesley  gave  to  Thomas  Coke,  D.C.L.,  after  he 
had  set  him  apart,  Wesley  said,  “I,  John  Wesley, 
think  myself  to  be  providentially  called,  at  this 
time,  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry  in  America.”  This  was  written  on 
the  “second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty- 
four.”  It  was  all  done  for  America,  which  meant 
the  new  republic. 

In  the  title-page  of  his  service  book  Wesley 
printed,  “The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists 

54 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


in  North  America.  With  Other  Occasional  Serv¬ 
ices.”  This  was  printed  in  Bristol,  England, 
about  the  same  time  he  published  the  other  docu¬ 
ments  relating  to  the  reorganization  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  societies,  and  he  meant  them  for  what  he  had 
already  called  ‘‘America.”  The  Preface  was 
dated,  Bristol,  September  9,  1784. 

When  the  Americans  had  the  second  edition  of 
this  book  printed,  in  1786,  they  changed  the  title 
by  striking  out  “in  North  America, ’  9  and  inserting 
“in  the  United  States  of  America,”  the  legal  title 
of  the  country,  so  as  to  show  just  what  was  meant 
by  the  words  in  the  original  title. 

When  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was 
formed,  toward  the  close  of  1784,  it  was  styled 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,” 
That  is  the  title  in  the  Discipline  of  the  organizing 
Conference,  which  was  printed  in  1785.  So  in 
1787  we  find  “in  America,”  but  that  meant  “The 
United  States  of  America,”  Thus  it  is  plain  that 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  intended  to 
be  a  church  in,  and  for,  America,  or  the  United 
States  of  America. 

In  1789,  among  the  questions  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline  we  find  this  one:  “Who  have  been 
elected  by  the  unanimous  suffrages  of  the  General 
Conference  to  superintend  the  Methodist  connexion 
in  America?”  but,  in  1790,  “Methodist  connexion 
in  America”  is  changed  to  the  “Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  in  America”  and  this  also  appears 
in  1792.  “Connexion”  was  an  old  form  which 
had  persisted,  but  as  time  went  on  the  old  habit 

55 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


became  weaker,  and  the  new  and  later  legal  forms 
came  into  familiar  use. 

So  a  little  later,  as  the  people  settled  down  to  a 
common  and  more  exact  familiarity  with  the  legal 
title  of  the  new  nation,  they  became  more  exact  in 
language,  and,  instead  of  merely  saying 
“America,”  they  said  “The  United  States  of 
America,”  and  the  church  was  not  merely  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,”  but 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  ’  ’  one  being  the  equivalent  of  the 
other,  and  both  meaning  the  same  country  and  the 
new  American  nation.  So  when  Bishops  Coke  and 
Asbury  waited  on  President  Washington  with  the 
address  from  the  American  Conference,  the  first 
President  referred  to  them  as  “Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.” 

The  work  was  for  “America,”  and  the  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  was  established  as  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,”  or 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  ’  ’  in  harmony  with  the  full  title 
of  the  nation,  and  both  meant  the  same  thing,  and 
indicated  that  the  new  organization  was  an  Ameri¬ 
can  church,  “in  America,”  or  “in  the  United 
States  of  America.” 

Settled  usage  fixed  the  association  with  the  name 
of  the  nation  and  the  complete  title  took  its  place 
in  legal  forms  so  that  when  the  “Chartered 
Fund”1  was  incorporated  it  embodied  the  full 

General  Conference  Journal,  1796,  pp.  20-22. 

56 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


title  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,’ ’  and  the  purpose  of 
this  fund  was  therein  stated  to  be  “for  the  relief 
and  support  of  the  itinerant,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  ministers  and  preachers  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  their  wives  and  children,  widows,  and 
orphans.”  This  fund,  which  still  continues,  was 
established  in  1796,  and  was  incorporated  in 
Philadelphia,  according  to  the  laws  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  in  1797.  The  money  of  “The  Preachers’ 
Fund,”  which  originated  in  1784,  was  merged 
into  the  Chartered  Fund. 

In  the  same  year,  namely,  1796,  “the  form  of  a 
Deed  of  Settlement”  for  the  conveyance  of 
church  property  was  adopted,  and  in  it  the  full 
title  of  the  denomination  was  used,  that  is  to  say, 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.”  Thus  the  form  recites  that 
“unto  them  the  said  .  .  .  and  their  successors 
in  office  for  ever  in  trust,  that  they  shall  erect  and 
build  or  cause  to  be  erected  and  built  thereon,  a 
house  or  place  of  worship  for  the  use  of  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  according  to  the  rules 
and  discipline  which  from  time  to  time  may  be 
agreed  upon  and  adopted  by  the  Ministers  and 
Preachers  of  the  said  Church  at  their  General 
Conference  in  the  United  States  of  America,”  etc.1 

In  1864,  the  trust  clause  was  modified  to  read: 
“In  trust  that  said  premises  shall  be  used,  kept, 

^neral  Conference  Journal,  1796,  pp.  12-15. 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


maintained,  and  disposed  of  as  a  place  of  Divine 
worship  for  the  ministry  and  membership  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  subject  to  the  Discipline,”1  etc. 

This  meant  there  was  seen  in  the  early  days,  as 
in  1796,  the  importance  of  putting  into  legal  docu¬ 
ments  the  full  legal  title  of  the  denomination,  and 
so  the  form  ordered  was  4  ‘  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 9  9  It 
was  an  American  church  and  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  the  American  character  of  the 
church  was  further  emphasized  by  specifying  that 
the  trustees  and  their  successors  shall  be  subject 
4  4  to  the  rules  and  discipline  which  from  time  to 
time  may  be  agreed  upon  and  adopted  by  the 
Ministers  and  Preachers  of  the  said  Church  at 
their  General  Conferences  in  the  United  States  of 
America,”  which  means  not  only  that  it  is  an 
American  church,  but  also  that  its  seat  of  author¬ 
ity  is  in,  and  must  be  in  4  4  The  United  States  of 
America.  ’  ’ 

That  title  4  4  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America”  was  in  legal  docu¬ 
ments,  was  in  the  trust  clause  of  church  deeds,  and 
to  this  day  that  title  stands  in  title  deeds  to  church 
property  amounting  to  many  millions  of  dollars. 

The  history  of  the  development  of  the  title  of 
the  church  is  exceedingly  interesting.  The  phras¬ 
ing  varied,  but  always  meant  the  same  thing. 
The  church  was  to  be  in  America  and  to  be 

General  Conference  Journal,  1864,  p.  267.  See  Discipline, 
1864,  pp.  266,  267,  269. 


58 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


an  American  church.  Seeing  their  American 
colonies  suddenly  becoming  a  nation,  it  is  not  sur¬ 
prising  that  British  people  were  at  first  a  little 
confused  and  indefinite  when  they  had  to  name 
the  new  country.  Wesley,  an  Englishman,  three 
thousand  miles  away,  wrote  to  “our  Brethren  in 
North  America”  and  called  them  “our  American 
brethren,”  and  referred  to  the  fact  that  “many 
of  the  provinces  of  North  America  are  totally  dis¬ 
joined  from  their  mother  country,  and  erected  into 
independent  States.”1  Bishop  Coke,  another 
Englishman,  doubtless  had  something  to  do  with 
the  early  titles  of  the  church,  and  so  had  Bishop 
Asbury,  a  born  Englishman  who  had  become  an 
American.  In  the  same  way  colloquialisms  had 
variations,  but  in  course  of  time  the  same  usage 
became  common. 

They  all,  however,  looked  upon  the  country  as 
America,  then  more  precisely  as  the  United  States, 
and  then  more  fully,  and  exactly  correct,  as  the 
United  States  of  America;  and  so,  it  was  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
and  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  full  title,  which,  when  put 
into  the  legal  documents,  had  the  sanction  of  the 
decrees  of  the  courts,  and  used  on  an  historic 
occasion  had  the  approbation  of  the  first  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  republic. 

It  is  also  worth  recalling  that  the  full  title  was 
used  as  the  formal  beginnings  of  General  Confer- 

lCircular  Letter  of  September  10,  1784. 

59 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ence  Journals.  Thus  in  the  Journal  of  1812  the 
opening  is  “The  delegated  General  Conference  of 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,”  and  so  in  1816.  In  1832  it  read 
“A  General  Conference  of  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.” 
Such  was  the  full  title,  but  some  secretaries  have 
used  abbreviations.  It  will  be  of  interest  to  recall 
that  the  title  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is 
“The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,”  and  the  title  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  is  “The  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America.”  They  also  were 
American  churches,  and,  like  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  carry  the  fact  in  their  titles. 

In  this  era,  particularly,  to  be  an  American 
church  means  very  much.  Though  there  is  no 
union  of  church  and  state,  nevertheless  the  great 
growth  and  steady  progress  of  the  United  States 
of  America  makes  an  impressive  background  for 
all  of  its  denominations,  and  formally  or  inform¬ 
ally,  becomes  a  powerful  protection  for  their 
Christian  enterprises  at  home  and  abroad.  As  in 
other  matters,  many  reckon  the  American  church 
as  meaning  the  best  ecclesiasticism,  and  they  as¬ 
sume  it  reflects  the  freedom  and  aggressiveness 
of  the  land  from  which  it  comes.  In  the  world  of 
to-day  it  is  something  to  be  an  American,  and  it  is 
something  to  be  an  American  church. 

For  that  and  other  reasons  there  was  and  is  a 
great  value  in  blending  the  national  name  with 
the  specific  title  of  the  church,  as  in  the  case  of 

60 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.”  At  home  it  is  not  an  alien 
church,  and  abroad  it  is  under  the  protecting 
shadow  of  the  wing  of  the  American  eagle.  To 
be  an  American  church  means  very  much  to  an 
American  church  in  the  home  land,  and,  in  a  for¬ 
eign  land,  it  means  very  much  more,  for  even  the 
foreigner  sees,  looming  up  behind  it,  great  and 
beneficent  “America,”  which,  with  her  growing 
numbers  and  increasing  might,  has  gone  to  the 
relief  of  other  nations  in  their  dire  distress. 
This  is  no  time  for  a  church  to  carelessly  throw 
aside  its  Americanism  or  to  treat  lightly  or  in¬ 
differently  its  American  affiliation.  For  a  guide 
in  its  own  affairs  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  needs  to  remember  that  it  is  an  Ameri¬ 
can  church,  and,  as  a  matter  of  common  his¬ 
toric  honesty,  it  must  remember  and  say  that  it  is 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.” 

The  recent  tendency  to  abbreviate  the  title  of 
the  church  is  to  be  deprecated.  Colloquially,  of 
course,  the  human  tendency  is  toward  brevity, 
and,  so,  it  wais  and  is  easier  to  say  “The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church,”  than  “The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Amer¬ 
ica.”  They  both  were  intended  to  mean  the  same 
thing,  for  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church”  was 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.”  That  is  what  it  is  in  fact,  in 
history,  and  in  law. 

To  use  the  shorter  title  colloquially  might  be 

61 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


harmless,  but,  when  it  comes  to  formal  documents 
and  supposedly  accurate  legislation,  there  is 
danger  that  it  may  be  carried  too  far,  and  recent 
omissions  of  the  full  title  in  General  Conference 
deliverances  may  lead  to  misconceptions  that  will 
tend  to  injure  the  denomination  and  cause  serious 
loss,  though  the  courts  will  endeavor  to  ascertain 
what  was  intended.  However,  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  is  not  supreme  in  everything,  and  these 
errors  do  not  make  void  the  aforementioned  facts, 
and,  especially,  the  great  fact  that  4  4  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church”  is  an  American  church. 
Still  the  tendency  to  change  old  phrasing  has  been 
carried  to  a  very  dangerous  extreme,  and  should 
not  be  attempted  by  any  one  who  has  not  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  law  and  its  history, 
and  respect  for  the  same.  Just  as  4  4  The  United 
States”  is  the  abbreviated  title  of  this  country, 
the  full  title  being  4  4  The  United  States  of 
America,  ’ ’  so  4  4  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ’  ’ 
is  the  contracted  form  of  4  4  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  ’  ’ 
There  are  other  4 4 United  States”  in  various 
parts  of  the  world,  but  there  is  only  one  4  4  United 
States  of  America. 9  9  That  is  what  distinguishes  it, 
and  it  is  44  America,”  and  its  people  are  Americans, 
just  as  in  4 4 The  United  States  of  Mexico”  the 
people  are  Mexicans,  and,  as  in  4  4  The  United 
States  of  Brazil,”  they  are  Brazilians.  People 
may  speak  of  4 4 The  United  States,”  and  not  be 
misunderstood  in  this  country,  but  not  so  every¬ 
where.  The  real  and  legal  title  is  4  4  The  United 

62 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

States  of  America,”  and  people  may  speak  of 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  or  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  ’  ’ 
and  not  be  misunderstood  in  some  places,  but  the 
full  title  is,  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,”  and  this  should  be 
used  in  law  and  in  dignified  utterance. 

Another  interesting  and  illuminating  fact  is 
that  the  new  American  church  promptly  severed 
its  relation  to  Wesley  and  the  mother  organization 
in  Great  Britain,  and  in  this  way  specially  em¬ 
phasized  its  character  as  a  purely  American 
church. 

At  the  beginning  in  1784  and  1785,  as  is  shown 
in  the  first  Discipline  (1785,  p.  3)  the  founders  of 
the  new  church,  desiring  to  continue  some  form 
of  connection  with  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Method¬ 
ism,  passed  at  the  organizing  Conference  an  act 
in  which  they  said:  “During  the  life  of  the  Rev¬ 
erend  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  Gospel,  ready,  in  matters  belonging  to 
Church  government,  to  obey  his  commands;  and 
we  do  engage  after  his  death  to  do  everything  that 
we  judge  consistent  with  the  cause  of  religion  in 
America,  and  the  political  interest  of  these  States, 
to  preserve  and  promote  our  union  with  the 
Methodists  in  Europe.”1  This  was  the  outburst 
of  a  warm  filial  and  fraternal  spirit  amid  the  en¬ 
thusiasm  of  the  new  church  “in  America,”  but, 
in  a  very  short  time,  influential  preachers  con- 

1 Discipline ,  1785,  p.  3,  quoted  in  Lee’s  History  of  the  Method¬ 
ists ,  1810,  p.  95. 


63 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


eluded  that  they  had  said  too  much  and  had  taken 
too  great  a  risk,  and  in  a  little  over  two  years  the 
Conference  of  1787  canceled  the  agreement. 

Fault  was  found  with  Asbury  on  this  account. 
In  reply  he  wrote :  4 ‘And  why  was  I  thus  charged? 
Because  I  did  not  establish  Mr.  Wesley’s  absolute 
authority  over  the  American  connection.  For  my¬ 
self,  this  I  had  submitted  to,  but  the  Americans 
were  too  jealous  to  bind  themselves  to  yield  in  all 
things  relative  to  church  government.  Mr.  Wes¬ 
ley  was  a  man  they  had  never  seen — was  three 
thousand  miles  off — how  might  submission  in  such 
a  case  be  expected?” 

Asbury  also  said:  “I  never  approved  of  that 
binding  minute.  I  did  not  think  it  practical  ex¬ 
pediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley  at  three  thousand 
miles  distance  in  all  matters  relative  to  church 
government.  ’ n 

The  new  church  was  a  self-governing  American 
church  and  even  its  intense  love  for  Wesley,  the 
founder,  would  not  permit  any  dictation,  or  gov¬ 
ernment,  coming  from  outside  “America.”  It  was 
an  American  church,  and  it  has  always  remained 
“The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,” 

Another  very  conclusive  evidence  that  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  an  American 
church  is  found  in  the  Twenty- third  Article  of  the 
Articles  of  Religion  which  article  was  framed  and 
adopted  by  the  organizing  Conference  of  1784, 


better  in  Atkinson’s  Centennial  History ,  p.  56. 

G4 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


readopted  in  the  new  Constitution  of  1900,  and 
still  remains  as  originally  drafted. 

The  article  is  as  follows : 

“  XXIII.  Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

4 ‘The  President,  the  Congress,  the  General  As¬ 
semblies,  the  Governors,  and  the  Councils  of  State 
as  the  Delegates  of  the  People,  are  the  Rulers  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  according  to  the 
division  of  power  made  to  them  by  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  by  the  Constitutions 
of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said  States 
are  a  sovereign  and  independent  Nation,  and 
ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdic¬ 
tion.^1  This  shows  most  conclusively  that  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  its  very  organiza¬ 
tion  recognized  its  relation  to  the  republic  called 
the  United  States  of  America.  It  was  The  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  it  recognized  and  supported  this 
government,  and  had  no  such  relation  to  any 
other  political  government  in  the  world,  and,  as 
this  Article  has  always  stood  among  its  Articles 
of  Religion,  as  it  does  now,  it  has  always  had,  and 
now  has,  the  same  peculiar  relation  to  this  country 
and  is  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  emphasis  is  given 
to  the  fact  by  classing  the  declaration  as  an 
Article  of  Religion.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
Article  speaks  of  the  nation  as  “the  United  States 


'Discipline,  1920,  If  23,  Constitution,  Art.  xxiii. 

»  65 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


of  America  ’  ’  and  also  uses  the  abbreviated  and 
colloquial  form  of  “the  United  States.” 

Thus  it  is  clearly  shown  that  the  ecclesiastical 
organization  commonly  known  as  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  an  American  church.  It  is 
such  historically,  by  its  own  law  and  by  civil  law, 
and  by  its  Constitution,  and,  particularly,  by  that 
part  of  its  Constitution  entitled  the  Articles  of 
Religion ;  and  so  guarded  is  this  feature  of  its  na¬ 
ture  that  even  its  General  Conference  cannot 
change  it  either  in  form  or  fact. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  always  has  been,  and  now  is, 
an  American  church. 


66 


CHAPTER  III 
FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


CHAPTER  III 


FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

Christ’s  command  to  his  early  disciples,  the 
nucleus  of  the  Christian  Church,  was  not  only  to 
“Go  preach  and  ‘teach,’  ”  but  “Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea¬ 
ture,”  (Mark  16.  15),  “baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost”  (Matt.  28.  19). 

The  primitive  church  of  the  New  Testament 
times,  especially  under  the  inspiration  and  exam¬ 
ple  of  the  apostles,  endeavored  literally  to  obey 
Christ’s'  injunction,  and  Christianity  was  carried 
into  every  then  known  continent,  and  the  founda¬ 
tions  of  the  Church  of  Christ  were  laid  in  Asia, 
Africa,  and  Europe. 

The  movement  was  characterized  by  prompt¬ 
ness,  persistence,  and  fidelity,  and  the  results 
were  not  only  marvelous  but  also  miraculous. 

Through  the  succeeding  centuries  the  Christian 
Church  has  never  entirely  forgotten  the  great 
commission,  and,  though  there  have  been  fluctua¬ 
tions  in  energy  and  sacrifice,  the  work  has  been 
going  on  so  that  the  gospel  has  been  preached  in 
every  land,  and  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth,  and  almost  everywhere  Christianity  is 
recognized  as  a  mighty  force. 

<  69 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Wesleyanism,  or  Methodism,  with  its  evangelis¬ 
tic  impulse,  had  naturally  the  missionary  instinct 
to  go  where  the  Christian  religion  was  not,  and, 
hence,  Methodism  spread  throughout  the  British 
Islands,  and  soon  found  its  way  across  the  At¬ 
lantic  Ocean  to  the  new  continent. 

In  turn  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  manifested  the  same 
spirit.  Its  first  duty  was  to  spread  the  gospel 
throughout  the  United  States,  which  itself  was 
steadily  and  rapidly  growing. 

At  a  very  early  period  “The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  in  America, ”  or  in  “The  United 
States  of  America  ”  looked  beyond  the  boundaries 
of  “The  United  States  of  America”  with  a  help¬ 
ful  heart  and  a  missionary  spirit,  and  went  out 
and  founded  Christian  missions  in  other  coun¬ 
tries.  Indeed,  at  the  Conference  which  organized 
the  Church,  in  1784,  Freeborn  Garretts  on  and 
James  0.  Cromwell  were  sent  as  missionaries  to 
Nova  Scotia,  and  Jeremiah  Lambert  was  sent  to 
Antigua,  in  the  West  Indies.  Then,  in  a  little 
time,  contact  with  Canada  and  Canadians  caused 
the  work  to  overlap  the  northern  border,  and 
Methodist  Episcopal  preachers  were  found 
preaching  the  gospel  truth  in  British  territory. 
In  a  few  years,  an  extensive  work  under  the  aus¬ 
pices  of  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church”  grew 
up  in  Canada,  These  foreign  missions,  however, 
did  not  destroy,  or  modify,  the  fact  that  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church”  was  “The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  in  America”  or  “in  the 

70 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


United  States  of  America.”  It  was  still  an 
American  church. 

By  1828  the  Canadian  work  had  become  inde¬ 
pendent  and  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  without  work  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United 
States. 

This  condition,  however,  lasted  only  a  short 
time,  for,  in  1833,  a  mission  was  established  in 
Liberia,  which  was  a  sort  of  extension  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  for  the  benefit  of  col¬ 
ored  colonists  from  America.  This  has  been  re¬ 
garded  as  the  first  foreign  mission  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church.  The  mission  in  South 
America  was  begun  in  1836.  Then,  in  1847,  a 
mission  was  begun  in  China,  with  headquarters 
in  Foochow. 

From  these  beginnings  the  missions  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  have  spread  far  and 
wide  in  all  the  continents  except  Australia,  and  to 
very  distant  points.  In  Japan  it  established  mis¬ 
sion  work,  which  now  has  become  an  inde¬ 
pendent  church,  but  continues  to  aid  the  work  in 
that  country.  It  has  missions  in  Korea.  In  China 
it  has  seven  Conferences,  and  in  the  Fukien 
Province  there  are  three  Conferences.  In  India 
there  are  nine  Conferences.  In  Southeastern  Asia 
there  are  missions  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  in 
Malaysia,  and  in  the  Netherlands  Indies.  In 
Europe  there  are  missions  in  Norway,  Sweden, 
Finland,  and  Denmark;  in  Italy,  France,  Spain, 
Bulgaria,  and  Jugo-Slavia;  in  North  Germany, 
South  Germany,  Switzerland,  Austria,  the  Baltic 

<  71 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Countries,  Russia,  and  Hungary.  In  Africa  there 
are  missions  in  North  Africa,  in  Angola,  the 
Congo,  Rhodesia,  Liberia,  and  in  Southeast  Africa. 
In  the  western  hemisphere,  the  church  has  mis¬ 
sions  in  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  and  in  South 
America.  In  South  America  there  are  missions  in 
Panama,  in  Peru,  in  Chile,  in  Argentina,  and  in 
Uruguay,  with  two  points  on  the  Amazon  River. 

The  Methodist  Year  Booh  for  1922  gives  the 
membership  of  these  missions  as  follows :  Africa, 
19,635 ;  Eastern  Asia,  including  China  and  Korea, 
96,909,  with  no  report  from  the  Japan  Mission 
Council ;  Southern  Asia,  embracing  India  and 
Burma,  260,825 ;  Southeastern  Asia,  including 
Singapore  and  the  Philippines,  62,015;  Europe, 
without  North  Africa,  81,373;  Mexico  and  Cen¬ 
tral  America,  8,913;  and  South  America,  12,407, 
making  a  total  of  542,077  members;  and  these 
figures  show  an  increase  for  Africa,  of  1,279; 
Eastern  Asia,  of  5,071;  Southern  Asia,  of  13,100; 
Southeastern  Asia,  of  2,090;  Europe,  of  3,572; 
Mexico  and  Central  America,  of  1,612 ;  and  South 
America,  of  1,085,  making  a  total  increase  for  the 
preceding  year  of  27,809  members  in  all  these  for¬ 
eign  missions. 

For  these  foreign  missions  the  following 
amounts  were  distributed  in  1920 11 

To  China  .  $1,034,299  23 

To  Japan  .  211,665  32 

Korea  .  176,558  19 

India  and  Burma .  1,009,791  57 

1The  Methodist  Year  Book,  1922,  pp.  Ill,  112. 

72 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Southeastern  Asia — 

Malaysia  .  $126,965  69 

Netherlands  Indies  .  51,712  64 

Philippines  .  104,670  62 

South  America  and  Mexico .  881,085  23 

Africa .  255,785  95 

Europe  and  North  Africa .  648,510  82 

War  Emergency  and  Reconstruction .  1,153,656  81 

Retired  Missionaries,  Incidental  Expenses,  and 

other  Unassigned  Expenditures .  161,698  66 


Making  a  total  of  .  $5,816,400  73 


To  this  are  to  be  added  the  contributions  of  the 
Woman’s  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

These  facts  give  us  an  outline  view  of  the  for¬ 
eign  missions  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
In  the  last  eighty-nine  years  they  have  spread  to, 
and  into,  all  the  great  continents  and  into  the  in¬ 
sular  possessions  or  holdings  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  the  foreign  membership  is  re¬ 
ported  to  be  over  five  hundred  and  forty-two  thou¬ 
sand.  Into  these  foreign  fields  the  Church,  in  a 
single  year,  1920,  through  the  General  Board  of 
Foreign  Missions,  poured  nearly  six  millions  of 
dollars,  which,  it  should  be  said,  however,  was 
considerably  above  the  average  annual  appropria¬ 
tion,  and  came  mainly  from  a  special  effort. 

From  the  statistics  for  the  year  ending  Decem¬ 
ber  1,  1921,  it  appears  that  the  gain  in  member¬ 
ship  was  twenty-seven  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  nine  (27,809).  It  should  be  said,  however, 
that  this  increase  has  been  surpassed  in  some  other 
years.  Nevertheless,  it  is  probable  that  some  will 
regard  the  gain  for  the  year  as  disappointing  in 

73 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


view  of  the  total  membership,  the  number  of  work¬ 
ers,  and  the  amount  of  money  expended. 

It  should  be  remembered  that,  while  it  is  natural 
that  a  fair  return  for  the  effort,  the  workers,  and 
the  money  expended,  is  to  he  expected,  and,  in  a 
sense,  may  be  demanded,  there  are  many 
things  in  changing  conditions  on  the  field,  that 
may  account  for  fluctuations  in  the  annual  out¬ 
come. 

This  sketch  shows  in  a  general  way  the  work  of 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  foreign  lands. 
It  indicates  the  location  of  the  foreign  mission 
fields,  the  size  of  the  missions,  their  progress,  and 
their  expense  to  the  mother  church,  and  this  sur¬ 
vey  naturally  raises  many  questions  that  are  per¬ 
fectly  legitimate,  and  which  must  be  answered 
either  by  the  questioner  himself  or  by  those  who 
have  the  right  vision  and  the  necessary  facts. 
These  inquiries  will  come  both  from  those  in  the 
home  church  and  those  in  the  foreign  field,  and, 
naturally,  the  questions  will  take  color  from  the 
direction  and  the  environment  from  which  they 
come. 

In  the  foreign  mission  the  worker  may  ask  about 
the  probability  of  an  early  increase  in  the  corps 
of  missionaries  from  the  home  land,  and  the  in¬ 
crease  of  missionary  money  from  the  same  source, 
while  in  the  home  church  the  lover  of  missions 
may  wonder  how  the  foreign  demand  can  be  met 
in  view  of  financial  conditions  and  the  press¬ 
ing  necessities  of  the  church  in  the  United  States. 
In  the  moment  of  depression,  a:s  he  considers  the 

74 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


little  mission  in  the  midst  of  the  many  millions  of 
a  long-entrenched  heathendom,  he  may  wonder 
whether  if  the  home  church  sent  all  its  money  it 
would  succeed  in  converting  all  these  immense 
masses;  but  then  he  recovers,  as  he  remembers 
the  command  of  Christ  to  “Go  into  all  the  world,” 
and  perceives  that  all  is  not  to  be  done  in  a  day, 
but  that  the  gospel  is  to  gradually  leaven  the 
whole  lump. 

At  the  same  time  those  charged  with  the  man¬ 
agement  of  the  vast  affairs  of  the  missionary 
boards  may  consider  whether,  after  the  churches 
have  responded  with  astonishing  liberality,  and 
through  the  course  of  years,  to  a  special  appeal, 
it  is  not  good  policy  and  righteous  rightwiseness, 
to  relax  the  strain  and  resume  a  proper  normali¬ 
zation  in  the  askings. 

Then  the  observer  in  the  home  church  may  view 
this  great  family  of  churches,  dotting  the  whole 
world,  with  members  who  belong  to  diverse  races, 
speak  many  different  languages,  and  have  back  of 
them  various  histories,  and  some  with  very  an¬ 
cient  and  great  civilizations;  and,  as  he  views 
them,  he  may  feel  like  the  parent  of  a  large  fam¬ 
ily,  and  wonder  whether  the  children  will  stay 
under  the  old  roof  tree  or  go  out  and  make  their 
own  way  in  the  world. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  church  of  the  foreign 
land,  some  may  be  asking  when  their  own  people 
will  hold  the  highest  offices,  and  when  they  will 
govern  themselves  and  direct  their  own  affairs, 
and  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  become  a 

75 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


native  church,  even  if  it  meant  greater  and  long- 
continued  financial  sacrifices  for  themselves. 

Doubtless  these  and  many  other  questions  are 
passing  through  the  minds  of  many  equally  de¬ 
voted  lovers  of  the  church  both  at  home  and 
abroad.  While  quite  from  the  beginning  the  home 
church  has  had  its  foreign  missions,  the  church 
“in  the  United  States  of  America”  has  always 
made  a  distinction  between  the  foreign  missions 
and  the  home  field.  The  status  of  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  was  not  just  the  same  as  that  of  the  home 
church.  Thus  it  has  held  that  its  territory  within 
the  home  field,  “in  the  United  States  of  America,’ ’ 
must  be  held  intact,  but  it  has  admitted  the  right 
of  territory  in  foreign  missions,  and  the  right  of 
foreign  missions  themselves,  to  be  set  off,  and 
made  independent.  Thus  it  consented  to  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  work  in  Canada,  on  the  ground 
that  those  of  the  church  in  Canada  were  under  a 
foreign  jurisdiction,  and,  therefore,  could  not  be 
held  by  the  American  church.  Likewise  the  same 
principle  is  found  in  the  independence  conceded  to 
the  missions  of  the  church  which  were  in  Japan. 

The  case  of  Canada  came  up  in  the  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  1828,  on  a  memorial  from  the  Canadian 
Conference  asking  for  independence,  and  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  adopted  a  report  including  the 
following:  “Whereas  the  Canada  Annual  Confer¬ 
ence,  situated  in  the  province  of  Upper  Canada, 
under  a  foreign  government,  have,  in  their  mem¬ 
orial,  presented  to  this  Conference  the  difficulties 
under  which  they  labour  in  consequence  of  their 

76 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


union  with  a  foreign  ecclesiastical  government, 
and  setting  forth  their  desire  to  be  set  off  as  a 
separate  church  establishment;  and  whereas,  this 
General  Conference  disclaim  all  right  to  exercise 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under  such  circum¬ 
stances,  except  by  mutual  agreement” — 1  etc. 

This  shows  that  the  status  of  the  foreign  mission 
was  different  from  the  home  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  In  the  United  States  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  could  not  separate  and  make  in¬ 
dependent  a  Conference  or  Conferences,  but  it 
could  the  mission  or  Conference  in  a  foreign  land, 
under  a  foreign  jurisdiction  or  government. 

Nathan  Bangs,  D.D.,  in  his  History  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church ,2  tells  also  how 
Doctor  John  Emory,  afterward  bishop,  showed 
‘  ‘  that  the  compact  between  us  and  our  brethren  in 
Canada  was  altogether  of  a  voluntary  character — 
we  had  offered  them  our  services  and  they  had  ac¬ 
cepted  them — and  therefore,  as  the  time  had  ar¬ 
rived  when  they  were  no  longer  willing  to  receive 
or  accept  of  our  labors  and  superintendence,  they 
had  a  perfect  right  to  request  us  to  withdraw  our 
services,  and  we  the  same  right  to  withhold  them. ’ 9 
But  in  the  United  States  this  could  not  be  done, 
for  there  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  an 
American  church  for  the  whole  country  and  with¬ 
out  competition  with  any  foreign  jurisdiction,  and 
here  the  government  would  protect  its  title  as  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 

General  Conference  Journal ,  1823,  p.  338. 

2New  York,  1840,  vol.  iii,  p.  391. 

77 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


of  America  and  no  one  could  organize  a  rival 
church  under  its  title.  Because  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was  an  American  church  in  and 
for  the  whole  United  States  of  America  it  could  not 
alienate  its  territory  within  the  bounds  of  its  na¬ 
tion,  and  because  it  was  an  American  church  the 
General  Conference  of  1828  said  that,  as  Canada 
was  “  under  a  foreign  government,  ’  ’  it  disclaimed 
“all  right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
under  such  circumstances,  except  by  mutual  agree¬ 
ment,  ’  ’  and  so  it  consented  to  the  independence  of 
its  Canadian  Conference. 

The  converse  was  involved  in  the  proposition  on 
the  part  of  certain  Southern  Conferences  to  with¬ 
draw  from  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  ’forties,  and,  regarding  the  right  of  such  An¬ 
nual  Conferences  to  withdraw  and  of  the  General 
Conference  to  sever  United  States  territory  from 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  General 
Conference  of  1848  rendered  a  decision  in  which 
it  said,  “nor  has  the  said  General  Conference,  or 
any  individual,  or  any  number  of  individuals,  any 
right,  constitutional  or  otherwise,  to  extend  official 
sanction  to  any  act  tending  directly  or  indirectly 
to  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church. 9  91 

Further,  that  General  Conference  practically 
and  actually  held  that,  though  a  convention  had 
met  and  organized  a  new  church,  no  territory 
had  been  detached,  or  transferred,  from  the  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  members  had  left 
the  church,  and,  so,  they  finally  said:  “We  regard 

General  Conference  Journal ,  1848,  p.  164. 

78 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


those  who  have,  by  their  own  act  and  deed,  become 
members  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Ohnrch, 
South,  as  having-  withdrawn  from  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  And  whereas  those  who  are 
members  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  good  and  regular  standing  cannot  be  deprived 
of  such  membership  without  due  form  of  trial,  all 
those  members  who  have  not  attached  themselves 
to  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  are 
and  have  been  members  of  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church,  and  as  such  they  are  entitled  to  its 
care  and  privileges.”1 

That  is  to  say,  according  to  this  ruling,  that  peo¬ 
ple  had  left  the  church  on  their  own  responsibility 
but  no  territory  had  been  transferred,  and  the  do¬ 
main  of  the  “church  in  the  United  States  of 
America”  was  still  the  entire  United  States  of 
America,  was  the  intent  of  the  finding  and  decision 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  because  the 
church  could  not  give  away  any  part  of  the  United 
States. 

In  this  ruling  there  is  no  denial  of  the  fact  of 
the  formation  of  the  new  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  South,  but  a  distinction  is  made  be¬ 
tween  individuals  leaving  one  church  and  forming 
another,  and  the  continuing  of  territory  in  the 
United  States  as  a  common  field  for  activity  which 
both  churches  may  occupy  and,  especially,  the  de¬ 
nial  of  the  right  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  to  dis- 


xGeneral  Conference  Journal ,  1848,  p.  164. 

79 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


member  anv  of  its  territory  in  the  said  United 
%/  %! 

States. 

In  what  we  are  saying,  we  have  no  thought  of 
opening  or  discussing  the  old  question  of  1844, 
but  are  merely  seeking  to  ascertain  the  law  of  the 
denomination,  and  to  illustrate  its  difference  of 
view  as  between  missions  in  foreign  lands  and  the 
field  in  the  United  States  ;  and  the  ruling  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1848  throws  a  flood  of 
light  on  the  distinction  in  status  between  the  home 
and  the  foreign  field. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  declared  it 
could  not  alienate  its  territory  in  the  home  land, 
which  is  the  United  States,  but  it  could  part  with 
both  people  and  territory  where  the  work  was 
under  foreign  government.  Being  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
it  considered  that  here  it  had  peculiar  rights  and 
responsibilities,  and  a  peculiarly  permanent  ten¬ 
ure. 

With  territory  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  United 
States  of  America  the  case  was  the  very  opposite. 
Outside  the  United  States  even  the  occupied  terri¬ 
tory  bore  a  very  different  relation  to  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  for  it  was  not  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  any  outside  country. 

It  was  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in,  and 
of,  the  United  States  of  America  with  missions  in 
foreign  countries,  where  it  sought  to  help  the  coun¬ 
tries  by  spreading  Christianity  as  understood  by 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  itself  was 

80 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


an  American  church.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Mission  outside  the  United  States  of  America  is  in 
a  foreign  country,  and  under  a  foreign  govern¬ 
ment,  and,  therefore,  is  not  held  in  precisely  the 
same  way  as  the  work  in  the  home  land,  and,  as 
has  been  shown,  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
being  an  American  church,  has  held  that  it  had 
no  right  to  control  the  foreign,  or  to  claim  con¬ 
trol  thereof,  against  its  will,  and,  consequently,  it 
is  possible  for  a  foreign  mission  to  become  an 
independent  church. 


81 


% 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  CENTRAL  SEAT  OF  AUTHORITY 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  CENTRAL  SEAT  OF  AUTHORITY 

With  the  great  growth  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  and  the  spread  of  its  missions  in 
foreign  countries,  it  is  not  astonishing  that  in¬ 
quiries  may  be  made  as  to  the  seat  of  authority, 
or  even  as  to  whether  it  has  any  central  seat  of 
authority. 

It  is,  therefore,  proper,  and  even  necessary  to 
ask  if  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  a  cen¬ 
tral  seat  of  authority ;  and,  if  it  has,  to  ask  whence 
the  authority  emanates. 

The  presumption  is  that  every  government  has 
not  only  authority  but  a  center  from  which  the 
authority  issues.  Thus  a  national  government 
has  its  capital  to  which  the  people  of  the  country 
and  the  nations  look  as  the  center  of  governmental 
processes  and  the  point  from  which  the  nation 
expresses  its  purposes,  publishes  its  decisions,  and 
sends  forth  its  decrees. 

So  every  organization  and  government  has  some 
point  which  is  its  center  for  legal  decision  and 
primary  administration.  It  must  be  so  with  an 
ecclesiastical  government,  and  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  cannot  be  an  exception  to  the 
rule. 

It  is  a  matter  of  fact  that  this  church  is  a 
government  and  that  it  does  govern.  As  to  the 

85 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


place  of  government,  that  is  a  matter  for  history 
and  present  fact,  and  the  question  is,  Where  has 
its  central  seat  of  authority  been,  and  where  is  it 
now?  It  has  governed  from  somewhere,  and  the 
facts  of  history  should  reveal  the  locality. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organ¬ 
ized  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  organization  was,  of  course,  in  these 
United  States. 

Beyond  all  question  it  was  organized  an  Ameri¬ 
can  church  and  the  seat  of  its  governmental  au¬ 
thority  was  in  the  United  States  of  America,  So 
it  started,  so  it  continued,  and  so  it  remains  to  this 
day,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  central  seat 
of  authority  was  legally  removed  to  some  point 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  this  country.  However, 
that  cannot  be  shown,  because  the  original  seat 
of  authority  never  was  shifted  from  this  United 
States. 

When  the  church  started,  and  following  the  or¬ 
ganizing  Conference  in  1784,  the  authority  was  in 
the  Conference,  and  in  the  bishops,  the  Confer¬ 
ence  making  the  laws,  and,  subsequently  to  the 
meeting  of  the  Conference,  the  bishops  interpret¬ 
ing  the  laws,  determining  their  application,  and 
administering  the  affairs  of  the  church. 

At  first  the  authority  to  make  the  laws  was 
vested  in  the  assembled  Annual  or  Yearly  Con¬ 
ferences,  acting  concurrently,  and  in  the  General 
Conference  which  then  meant  these  Conferences 
meeting  together.  A  little  later  it  meant  the 
quadrennial  General  Conference,  meeting  statedly 

86 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


once  in  four  years,  but  made  up  of  the  elders  or 
members  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  still  being 
practically  the  combined  Annual  Conferences  as¬ 
sembled  together. 

After  1808  came  the  delegated  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  which  also  met  quadrennially,  but  which  was 
composed  of  a  proportionate  number  of  repre¬ 
sentatives  from  each  Annual  Conference.  In  all 
these  years  the  seat  of  authority  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  was  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

Now,  the  inquirer  may  ask  whether  there  was 
any  change  through  the  operations  of  the  church 
beyond  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  but  to 
this  the  reply  must  be  in  the  negative,  for  the  seat 
of  authority  remained  in  the  United  States  even 
after  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  began  and 
continued  mission  work  in  a  foreign  country,  as 
for  example,  in  the  early  days  in  Canada,  which 
was  British  soil,  and  so  later  and  elsewhere.  Even 
with  foreign  missions  the  authority  of  the  church 
was  centered  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
it  has  never  been  otherwise.  The  church  in  the 
United  States,  of  course,  recognized  this  country 
as  having  the  center  of  ecclesiastical  authority, 
and  the  workers  and  organizations  under  the 
church,  everywhere  always  looked  to  the  United 
States  as  the  seat  of  the  church’s  government  and 
the  authority  which  governed  them. 

From  the  church  in  the  United  States,  the  for¬ 
eign  mission  got  its  rights  and  privileges,  as  well 
as  its  financial  support,  and  the  personal  minis- 

87 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


trations  which  the  missionaries  have  given,  and 
it  always  knew,  and  acknowledged,  that  the  seat 
of  authority  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  located  in  the  United  States  of  America.  All 
the  great  boards  of  the  church,  and  even  those  that 
specifically  care  for  the  foreign  missions,  have 
their  headquarters  in,  and  meet  in  the  United 
States,  and  always  have  done  so.  The  laws  made 
for  the  foreign  missions,  as  well  as  for  the  home 
church,  are  made  in  the  United  States,  and  that 
has  always  been  the  case.  The  executive  power, 
likewise,  is  centered  in  the  United  States,  and,  as 
everybody  may  know,  the  General  Conference  has 
always  met  in  this  country. 

Some  of  the  “bishops  resident  in  Asia”  have 
raised  an  interesting  question  that  requires  some 
attention.  This  is  a  suggestion  and  request  that 
the  General  Conference  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  hold  one  of  its  quadrennial  sessions 
in  the  city  of  Calcutta,  in  Bengal,  India. 

This  suggestion  and  request  will  strike  every 
one  as  exceedingly  novel.  One  will  think  of  the 
location  of  the  proposed  city  in  a  foreign  mission ; 
another  may  think  of  its  immense  distance  from 
the  United  States  and  the  land  of  the  mother 
church;  while  a  third  may  try  to  figure  up  the 
great  expense  of  transporting  delegates  from  all 
parts  of  the  world,  and  of  entertaining  not  far 
from  nine  hundred  or  a  thousand  delegates,  and 
their  friends,  in  a  foreign  mission  point. 

Such  matters  might  be  considered,  but  the  direct 
and  most  important  is  one  of  a  legal  character, 

88 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


and  that  question  is :  Can  the  General  Conference 
of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  meet  in  a 
foreign  country! 

The  first  answer  is  :  It  has  never  met  outside 
the  United  States  of  America.  The  presumption, 
therefore,  is  that  it  cannot  meet  beyond  the  bound¬ 
aries  of  this  country.  Certainly,  the  usage,  and 
the  unbroken  usage,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
church,  is  against  permitting  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  to  convene  and  sit  in  a  foreign  mission.  If 
there  were  nothing  further,  that  fact  alone  would 
be  sufficient  to  decide  the  question ;  but  we  turn  to 
the  organic  law  of  the  denomination,  and  find  that 
the  matter  is  determined  in,  and  by,  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  church,  for  Article  V,  section  first,  of 
the  Constitution  declares  that 4  4  The  General  Con¬ 
ference  shall  meet  ...  at  such  place  in  the 
United  States  of  America,”  etc.  It  is,  therefore, 
perfectly  plain  that  the  General  Conference  can¬ 
not  convene  outside  “the  United  States  of 
America,”  It  could  not  do  so  even  if  the  General 
Conference  voted  it,  and  ordered  it  by  a  unani¬ 
mous  vote,  for  the  General  Conference  is  subject 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  church,  and,  of  course, 
if  the  General  Conference  could  not  do  so,  it  could 
not  be  done  bv  the  vote  of  a  commission. 

It  will  also  be  recalled  that  in  the  great  legal 
document  drawn  up  in  1796,  in  which  the  church 
undertook  to  protect  the  church  property,  it  was 
explicitly  provided  that  the  parties  would  be  sub¬ 
ject  “to  the  rules  and  discipline  which  from  time 
to  time  may  be  agreed  to  by  the  Ministers  and 

89 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Preachers  of  the  said  Church  at  their  General 
Conferences  in  the  United  States  of  America,” 
thus  showing  that  the  General  Conferences  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  must  be  held  within 
the  bounds  of  “the  United  States  of  America.”  All 
of  which  emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  church  itself 
is  “  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,”  and  that  its  “ rules  and  dis¬ 
cipline”  must  be  made  in  this  country.  In  other 
words,  the  seat  of  authority  is  in  the  United  States 
of  America.  The  printed  document  containing 
the  letter  from  the  “bishops-  resident  in  Asia,” 
is  headed,  “Letter  to  the  Bishops  in  the  United 
States,”  and  goes  on  to  say:  “The  report  of  the 
Committee  to  prepare  a  communication  to  the 
Board  of  Bishops  at  home  was  adopted  as  fol¬ 
lows” — etc.  This  phrasing  is  a  recognition  of  the 
United  States  of  America  as  the  homeland,  and  of 
the  home  church  in  the  said  United  States,  from 
which  influences  went  out  to  establish  Christian 
and  Methodist  Episcopal  missions  in  foreign  lands. 
The  missionaries  are  sent  from  the  center,  and  the 
mother  church,  and  these  missionaries  look  back 
to  the  United  States  of  America  as  the  homeland, 
and  to  its  home  church,  as  the  head  center  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church’s  myriad  activities. 

These  bishops  in  foreign  fields,  therefore,  have 
no  thought  other  than  that  the  central  seat  of 
authority  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

All  these  facts  and  principles  prove  that  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  remains  as  it  was, 

90 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


an  American  church,  “in  the  United  States  of 
America,’ ’  and,  though  it  sustains  missionary 
operations,  and  has  organized  missions  in  foreign 
lands,  it  still  is  an  American  church,  and  continues 
to  preserve  its  seat  of  authority  in  the  same  United 
States. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  BISHOPRIC  OR  SUPERINTENDENCY 


* 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  BISHOPRIC  OR  SUPERINTENDENCY 

The  whole  question  of  the  episcopacy  in  Method¬ 
ism  is  brought  up  anew,  and  in  a  new  relation  by 
this  recent  discussion,  or  series  of  formal  inquir¬ 
ies  and  suggestions. 

These  questions  relate  to  the  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  episcopacy  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  the  episcopacy  which  has  been  extended  to 
foreign  mission  fields,  but  they  all  run  back  to  the 
primitive  episcopacy  of  earlier  Methodism,  for, 
though  we  mention  it  last,  it  was  the  first,  and  this 
primitive  form  was  the  germ  from  which  all  the 
others  have  grown. 

Some  kind  of  episcopacy  and  episcopal  supervi¬ 
sion  has  always  existed  in  Methodism,  and  long 
before  the  title  of  bishop  was  used,  for  episcopacy 
is  not  so  much  in  the  titles  that  may  be  employed 
as  in  the  fact  of  overseership  or  supervision  of  a 
religious  work  by  one  or  more,  who  are  charged 
with  that  duty.  John  Wesley  from  the  very  be¬ 
ginning  of  his  organization  in  England  was  an 
overseer  of  the  organization,  first  when  it  seemed 
like  an  outline  sketch,  and  later  as  it  enlarged 
and  became  crowded  with  details.  The  organism 
from  the  first  had  its  laity  and  had  its  preachers, 
its  teachers,  and  ministers,  with  religious  services, 
and  other  churchlike  functions.  Over  all  this  the 

95 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Reverend  John  Wesley  was  overseer,  or  super¬ 
visor,  and  he  regarded  himself  as  having  an  epis¬ 
copate,  or,  as  may  be  said,  a  bishopric,  and  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  he  was  an  episcopus,  or 
bishop,  as  he  did  when  he  wrote  to  his  brother 
Charles:  “I  firmly  believe,  I  am  a  scriptural 
emoKOTrog,  as  much  as  any  man  in  England,  or  in 
Europe;  for  the  uninterrupted  succession  I  know 
to  be  a  fable,  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can 
prove.”1 

The  question  was  one  of  fact  rather  than  of 
form  or  any  particular  process.  Wesley,  a  min¬ 
ister,  was  an  overseer  over  ministers  and  a  reli¬ 
gious  organization,  and,  hence,  was  an  episcopus, 
or  bishop,  but  he  could  claim  on  additional 
grounds. 

Methodism  never  claimed  the  kind  of  episcopacy 
that  some  other  bodies  have  asserted  they  had.  It 
never  based  its  idea  of  the  bishopric  on  what  has 
been  styled  “apostolic  succession.’ 9  As  has  been 
seen,  Wesley  rejected  this  dogma  as  “a  fable, 
which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove.  ’  ’  And,  so,  in 
other  particulars,  claimed  by  certain  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  Methodism  considered  them  as  erroneous, 
or  unnecessary,  but  as  Wesley  himself  claimed  to 
to  be  “a  scriptural  emottonog”  Methodism  has  al¬ 
ways  claimed  to  have  a  scriptural  episcopacy, 
and,  if  it  were  scriptural,  that  was  quite  sufficient. 
The  essential  idea  of  the  bishopric  has  been  that 
of  ecclesiastical  oversight  or  supervision,  and  the 

Methodist  Magazine,  1786,  p.  50.  See  Tyerman’s  Life  of 
Wesley ,  Vol.  iii,  p.  445. 


96 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

work  might  be  done  under  a  number,  or  a  choice 
of  titles. 

This  idea  was  found  in  the  early  days  of  Ameri¬ 
can  Methodism,  in  the  titles  Wesley  gave  his 
deputy  overseers,  as  we  may  call  them,  namely, 
Assistant  and  General  Assistant,  and  in  the  reor¬ 
ganization  of  the  American  societies,  the  titles  of 
superintendent,  or,  as  later,  general  superintend¬ 
ent. 

With  the  organization  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  soon  came  in  the  title  “bishop” 
as  the  equivalent  of  general  superintendent,  but 
as  more  in  harmony  with  the  historic  Christian 
Church,  and  as  more  expressive  of  the  full  func¬ 
tions  which  pertained  to  this  exalted  clerical  and 
spiritual  office. 

The  organizing  Conference  in  1784  formed  a 
church,  which  was  an  episcopal  church,  and  which 
it  called  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  an 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  Methodist,  or  Wesleyan 
kind,  and  not  of  the  prelatical  sort,  but  incorpor¬ 
ating  Wesley’s  advanced  ideas,  which  were  ad¬ 
vanced  because  they  went  back  to  the  primitive 
church,  and  were  drawn  from  the  New  Testament. 

Wesley  had  used  the  title  “superintendent”  and 
the  organizing  Conference  accepted  that  title, 
knowing  that  it  had  an  episcopal  meaning,  and  this 
idea  he  presented  in  the  certificate  he  gave  Doctor 
Thomas  Coke  after  he  had  “set  him  apart”  “to 
preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ,”  and  in  his  cir¬ 
cular  letter  to  the  Americans  Wesley  named 
“Doctor  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint 

97 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North 
America/  ’  and  these  were  duly  and  unanimously 
elected,  and  they  were  elected  for  America,  or  the 
United  States  of  America. 

The  superintendency  was  for  an  episcopal 
church  and  consequently,  must  have  been  an 
episcopacy.  Wesley’s  nomination  was  not  enough, 
and,  so  they  were  elected  by  the  Conference.  The 
intention  was  that  they  should  be  “joint  'superin¬ 
tendents”  and  those  to  be  in  the  episcopate  were 
to  be  coordinate  bishops  with  equal  authority. 

The  title-page  of  the  first  Booh  of  Discipline  had 
the  words:  “composing  a  form  of  Discipline  for 
the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and  other  members  of 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America.” 

In  the  Minutes  for  1787  appears  the  question: 
“Who  are  the  Superintendents  of  our  Church  for 
the  United  States?”  with  the  following: 

“ Ans.  Thomas  Coke,  (when  present  in  the 
States)  and  Francis  Asbury.”  This  enunciated 
an  important  principle.  Bishop  Coke  frequently 
went  to  Great  Britain  and  rendered  service  for 
the  British  Wesleyans,  and  the  answer  to  ques¬ 
tions  raised  in  America,  was  that  a  bishop,  or 
superintendent,  did  not  function  in  America  as  a 
bishop  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  when 
outside  the  United  States  of  America.  The 
church  was  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  bishop  or 
superintendent  was  for  the  church  in  the  United 
States,  and  to  be  an  effective  bishop  in  America, 
he  must  be  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

98 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

In  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  the  same  year, 
1787,  the  title  “bishop”  appears.  There  is  the 
heading  “Bishops”  in  “Section  IV,”  and  under 
it  the  subheading:  “On  the  Constituting  of 
Bishops  and  their  Duty.”  The  equivalent  and 
substituted  title,  “bishop,”  was,  therefore,  used  in 
the  legal  formularies,  about  two  years  and  five 
months  after  the  organization  of  the  church. 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  next  year,  1788,  “Who 
are  the  Superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the 
United  States?”  is  changed  to  read:  “Who  are 
the  Bishops  of  our  Church  for  the  United  States?” 
and  the  phrase,  “for  the  United  States,”  shows 
that  the  superintendents,  or  bishops,  were  elected 
for  America,  and  to  serve  in  that  part  of  geograph¬ 
ical  America  called  “the  United  States,”  or, 
more  fully,  “The  United  States  of  America,” 
which,  politically,  from  the  beginning  has  been 
“America.” 

In  the  Conference  Minutes  for  1789,  the  first 
question  is : 

“Who  are  the  Persons  that  exercise  the  Episco¬ 
pal  office  of  The  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and 
America? 

ilAns.  John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  Francis 
Asbury.”  And  the  second  question  was: 

“Who  have  been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suf¬ 
frages  of  the  General  Conference  to  superintend 
the  Methodist  connexion  in  America? 

“Ans.  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury.”  The 
first  was  intended  as  a  recognition  of  John  Wes¬ 
ley,  but  both  the  first  and  second  show  that  the 

99 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


other  bishops  mentioned  were  elected  for  the  work 
“in  America,”  and  not  any  other  part  of  the 
world.  The  first  also  shows  that  the  office  held  by 
Coke  and  Asbury  was  the  episcopal  office  and  that 
they  were  bishops. 

So  the  Minutes  of  the  next  year,  1790,  make  the 
question  read: 

“Quest.  6.  Who  have  been  elected  by  the  unani¬ 
mous  suffrages  of  the  General  Conference  to 
superintend  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America  ? 

“  Ans.  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury.” 

All  the  way  along  the  emphasis  is  on 
“America.”  The  church  is  “in  America,”  “in 
the  United  States,”  or  “in  the  United  States  of 
America.”  It  was  an  American  church,  and  the 
superintendents,  also  called  bishops,  were  of  “The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,”  and 
“for  the  United  States”  or  “the  United  States  of 
America,”  and  in  this  country  these  bishops  were 
to  perform  their  work,  and  were  not,  and  were 
not  intended,  to  function  as  bishops  outside 
“America”  or  “the  United  States  of  America.” 

These,  and  many  other  things,  gradually  and 
clearly  crystallized  into  “the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
general  superintendency,”  which  was  fixed  in  the 
first  formally  written  Constitution  of  the  Church, 
in  1808,  and  repeated  in  the  new  Constitution  of 
1900,  and  which  is  now  the  Constitution,  and,  thus, 
is  put  out  of  reach  of  sudden  or  ordinary  legisla¬ 
tion  in  the  General  Conference.1 


aSee  Discipline,  1920,  Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3,  pp.  44,  45. 

100 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


The  title  of  4  4  bishop/  ’  as  has  been  seen,  was 
substituted  for  4 4 superintendent’ ’  in  1787,  and 
has  always  continued  in  the  law,  as  well  as  in 
usage,  ever  since;  but  the  idea  of  superintending 
and  superintendence  has  always  been  connected 
with  it,  and  to  it  was  joined  the  word  “general”  to 
qualify  the  superintendence  in  order  to  show  that 
it  was  not  local,  nor  localized,  nor  limited  to  a 
subdivision  of  the  territory,  and  this  reached  its 
full  expression  in  the  article  of  the  Constitution 
which  at  this  point  reads:  4 4 The  General  Confer¬ 
ence  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of 
our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy,  or 
destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Super¬ 
intendency.  ’ 11 

The  field  was  the  United  States  of  America  and 
no  general  superintendent  could  be  limited  to  a 
particular  part  of  that  field,  but  each  and  every 
bishop  had  the  right  and  duty  of  general  super¬ 
intendence  everywhere  in  that  field,  and  this  was 
in  opposition  to  what  has  been  termed  diocesan 
episcopacy,  but  the  general  superintendency  did 
not,  and  could  not,  extend  personally  outside  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  exist  as  it  did 
within  the  boundaries  of  this  country.  The  bish¬ 
ops,  who  were  general  superintendents,  as  has  been 
seen,  were  4 4 for  the  United  States,”  and  not  in¬ 
dividually  for  foreign  lands  as  in  the  United 
States,  and  this  remained  true  even  after  the 
church  had  established  missions  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries. 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3,  pp.  44,  45. 

101 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


The  general  superintendents  never  were  located 
outside  the  United  States  of  America  before  the 
Constitution  was  made  and  the  understood  pro¬ 
hibition  was  embodied  in  the  “plan”  which  the 
Constitution  protects.  They  belonged  within  this 
country,  and  their  residences  were  within  the 
United  States — this  United  States,  not  the 
“United  States  of  Mexico,”  the  “United  States  of 
Columbia,”  or  the  “United  States  of  Brazil,”  but 
“the  United  States  of  America.” 

While  it  was  distinctly  understood  that  no  gen¬ 
eral  superintendent  bishop  could  be  located  out¬ 
side  the  United  States.,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  even 
after  missions  had  been  planted  in  foreign  lands, 
there  was  no  idea  that  a  general  superintendent 
could  be  placed  in  residence  in  a  field  outside  the 
United  States,  yet  there  came  a  time,  now  and 
then,  when  a  general  superintendent,  retaining  his 
residence  in  the  LTnitad  States,  and  also  his  official 
relation  to  this  country,  was  permitted  to  visit  a 
foreign  mission  field,  and  make  a  tour  of  inspec¬ 
tion,  giving  such  temporary  supervision  as  was 
deemed  necessary,  but  not  to  stay  at  any  length, 
or  to  have  a  residence  abroad.  It  was  simply  an 
emergency  visit  by  a  bishop  who  directly  and 
legally  belonged  to  the  home  land  and  the  church 
at  home. 

On  these  emergency  tours  the  fact  that  they  did 
not  belong  to  the  regular  duties  of  the  general 
superintendent  making  the  tour  was  distinctly  un¬ 
derstood.  In  the  visit  beyond  the  United  States 
such  a  bishop  was  performing  an  extra  service, 

102 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


and  this  was  peculiarly  recognized.  A  general 
superintendent  on  such  a  tour  had  necessarily  ex¬ 
penses  not  belonging  to  his  normal  duties,  and 
these  expenses  were  not  covered  from  the  episco¬ 
pal  fund,  which  provided  for  his  ordinary  and 
official  support.  When  he  went  beyond  the  United 
States  he  was  in  a  foreign  mission  field,  and  ren¬ 
dering  service  to  the  foreign  mission  department 
of  the  church.  In  other  words,  he  was  doing  for¬ 
eign-mission  work  in  the  emergency,  and  there¬ 
fore  his  traveling  expenses,  including  entertain¬ 
ment  not  otherwise  provided,  were  properly  paid 
from  the  missionary  treasury.  The  bishop  was  a 
temporary  loan  to  the  foreign  missionary  cause, 
and  the  distinction  in  the  law  was  maintained.  It 
was  an  admission  that  the  bishop  was  not  in  the 
discharge  of  his  ordinary  duty  for  which  he  was 
paid  from  the  episcopal  fund. 

The  use  of  the  word  “  superintendent’  ’  at  the 
beginning  and  the  almost  immediate  substitution 
of  the  title  “  bishop  ”  has  been  viewed  differently 
by  different  minds.  By  some  it  has  been  approved 
while  by  others  it  has  been  criticized,  and  in  many 
instances  the  criticism  came  from  those  who  were 
not  well  informed  as  to  the  facts  and  as  to  the 
motive. 

Attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that, 
though  “superintendent”  was  stricken  out  in 
some  places,  and  the  word  “ bishop”  substituted, 
the  words  “superintendent”  and  “superintend¬ 
ency”  never  were  abandoned  by  the  church,  and 
they  continue  to  this  day  in  the  laws  and  in  legal 

103 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUBCH 


documents,  and  even  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
church. 

In  this  way  the  title  “bishop”  and  the  title 
“superintendent,”  or  “general  superintendent,” 
seem  to  divide  the  honors,  but  the  fact  of  the 
divided  use  seems  to  have  created  some  confusion 
of  thought,  which,  however,  may  be  corrected  by 
an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  history  and  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  and 
the  intention  of  their  use. 

Wesley  used  the  word  “superintendent”  possi¬ 
bly  to  avoid  some  animadversions  from  his  op¬ 
ponents,  or  possibly  from  a  feeling  of  modesty  in 
view  of  his  great  ecclesiastical  movement;  but 
whether  he  desired  to  disarm  criticism  or  not,  he 
knew  nevertheless  that  the  primary  meanings  of 
“superintendent,”  “overseer,”  and  “bishop” 
were  essentially  the  same  and  that  they  could  be 
used  as  equivalents,  and  one  could  be  substituted 
for  the  other. 

Literally  the  word  “superintendent”  conveys 
the  idea  of  one  who  is  above,  who  has  the  direc¬ 
tion,  and  who  has  authority  in  this  direction.  Turn 
to  any  good  dictionary  and  this  will  be  found  to  be 
the  thought  in  the  word. 

The  Century  Dictionary  defines  “superintend¬ 
ent”  as  “One  who  has  the  oversight  and  charge  of 
something  with  power  of  direction;  supervisor, 
overseer.”  Of  course  an  overseer  is  one  who 
oversees,  but  the  overseeing  or  superintendency  is 
qualified  by  the  actual  nature  of  the  work  to  be 
done,  and  an  ecclesiastical  superintendent  is  some- 

104 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


thing  different  from  a  superintendent  of  a  factory 
or  some  form  of  material  construction. 

As  to  the  word  ‘  ‘  bishop  ’  ’  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  any  essential  distinction  between  it  and  the 
primary  idea  of  superintendent.  The  word 
“ bishop’ 7  comes  into  English  from  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  bisceop,  which,  as  Skeat  tells  us,  was  ‘ ‘bor¬ 
rowed  from  Latin  episcopus,”  which  in  turn  came 
from  the  “  Greek  emoKonog,  an  overseer,  over¬ 
looker,’  ’  which  comes  from  “  Greek  em,  upon,  and 
ofconog,  one  that  watches,”  and  the  bishop,  Episco¬ 
pus,  or  episkopos,  is  one  who  watches  upon  or 
over;  or,  as  another  high  authority  gives  it: 
“  Greek  entoKonog;  km,  over  +  anoirog,  inspector,  from 
root  of  o/conelv,  to  look  to.”  So  a  bishop  is  the  in¬ 
spector  who  looks  over,  or  oversees ;  or,  in  other 
words,  who  superintends,  and  “superintendent” 
and  “bishop”  are  essentially  the  same  in  their  pri¬ 
mary  meaning,  and  the  immediate  meaning  is  to 
be  determined  by  the  character  of  the  work. 

Turning  again  to  the  Century  Dictionary,  we 
find  this  definition  of  “bishop”:  “1.  An  overseer. 
2.  In  the  earliest  usage  of  the  Christian  Church,  a 
spiritual  overseer,  whether  of  a  local  church  or 
of  a  number  of  churches.”  “Bishops  and  Presby¬ 
ters,  literally,  overseer  and  elders.”  Then  Mc- 
Clintock  and  Strong’s  Biblical,  Theological,  and 
Ecclesiastical  Cyclopedia,  says:  “Superintendent. 
1.  The  officer  of  the  early  church  who  was  also 
called  overseer,  or  bishop  (emononog).”  So  that  a 
superintendent  was  an  overseer  and  a  bishop  was 
an  overseer,  and  as  both  had  the  same  primary 

105 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUECH 


meaning  they  could  be  used  interchangeably,  and 
the  use  might  be  a  matter  of  taste  or  preference. 
That  being  the  case,  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  had  a  right  to  use  “bishop’ ’  or  “superin¬ 
tendent”  as  it  preferred,  or  to  use  both.  Indeed, 
"Wesley  in  his  Circular  Letter  to  his  American  fol¬ 
lowers,  written  in  view  of  their  coming  reorgani¬ 
zation,  conceded  their  liberty,  and  told  them  they 
were  free  to  follow  the  model  of  the  New-Testa- 
ment  Church.  Thus  he  said:  “As  our  American 
brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled  from  the 
State  and  from  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare 
not  entangle  them  again  either  with  the  one  or  the 
other.  They  are  now  at  full  liberty  simply  to  fol¬ 
low  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church;  and 
we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in  that 
liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them 
free.”1 

But  the  plain  word  “superintendent”  did  not 
convey  to  the  common  mind  all  that  was  intended 
by  the  office,  for  the  work  was  more  than  mere 
oversight  and  administrative  direction,  and 
“bishop”  was  the  ecclesiastical  word  which  had 
long  been  used  by  the  historic  Christian  Church, 
and  better  expressed  the  ideas  beyond  mere  over¬ 
sight,  as,  for  example,  the  ordination  of  candidates 
for  the  ministry  and  the  spiritual  ministrations 
for  the  uplift  of  the  church. 

Wesley,  and  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 

Thomas  B.  Neely:  A  History  of  the  Origin  and  Develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Governing  Conference  in  Methodism ,  New  York, 
1892,  pp.  233,  234. 


106 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


associated  with  the  title  4  ‘  superintendent ’  ’  the 
highest  functions,  of  a  church  official.  Some,  how¬ 
ever,  have  seemed  to  think  that  Wesley  intended 
it  to  mean  something  less  than  the  full  and  regular 
bishopric,  but  this  is  not  a  correct  reading  of  his¬ 
tory.  Wesley  did  not  intimate  that  this  superin¬ 
tendency  was  characterized  by  inferiority,  or  as 
being  lower  in  rank  than  the  bishopric.  On  the 
contrary,  Wesley  regarded  it  as  possessing  great 
importance,  for  the  superintendent  was  to  be  the 
chief  executive  and  ecclesiastical  overseer,  and  the 
work  was  understood  to  be  the  work  of  a  bishop, 
and  all  that  a  bishop  could  do  this  superintendent 
could  do,  and  the  nature  of  the  work  reveals  the 
nature  of  the  office,  and  that  justified  the  title  of 
bishop.  So  the  early  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
knowing  that  the  superintendent  was  not  merely 
to  oversee  and  administer  the  affairs  of  the  church 
organization,  but  was  also  to  perform  every  right¬ 
ful  service  that  belonged  to  the  episcopate,  it  con¬ 
cluded  to  use  also  the  title  of  “bishop”  in  harmony 
with  its  own  episcopal  organization  and  the  eccle¬ 
siastical  usages  of  the  ages.  This  was  legitimate 
and  easily  understood. 

As  already  stated,  this  did  not  mean  the  total 
abandonment  of  the  word  “superintendent”  or 
the  idea  of  the  superintendency,  and  they  both 
appeared  in  the  first  written  Constitution  of  1808, 
where  we  find  both  “general  superintendent”  and 
“general  superintendency. ”  At  no  time  did 
“superintendent”  or  “superintendency”  in  this 
connection  ever  have  the  hard  and  cold  meaning 

107 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


that  may  be  found  in  a  secular  superintendency, 
for  it  is  not  a  secular  superintendency.  It  may 
mean  an  official  position,  and  it  may  be  spoken  of 
as  an  office,  but  it  is  not  a  secular  office,  and  should 
not  be  treated  as  such.  It  is  an  ecclesiastical  and 
religious  office,  with  sacred  functions,  which 
means  much  more  and  something  widely  different 
from  a  merely  secular  position.  It  is  not  profane 
and  it  should  not  be  profaned  by  the  incumbents 
or  any  one  else. 

In  passing,  it  may  be  recalled  that  the  Scotch 
Reformers  had  their  <  ‘  superintendents,  ’  ’  and  also 
that  the  Reverend  Doctor  William  White,  later 
Bishop  White,  of  Philadelphia,  in  1782,  before  the 
organization  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
proposed  the  election  of  “  permanent  superintend¬ 
ing  ministers,  with  powers  similar  to  those  of 
bishops.”1 

Some  in  the  church  even  to-day  seem  to  have 
misapprehended  the  import  and  intention  in  the 
use  of  the  term  “superintendent,”  and  its  use  by 
some  and  the  references  to  it  by  others,  even  in 
recent  years,  seem  to  show  that  they  regard  it  as 
a  depreciatory  term  which  discounts  the  office; 
and  sometimes  there  is  a  suspicion  that  now  and 
then  the  word  is  employed  for  the  purpose  of  dis¬ 
paraging  the  Methodist  Episcopal  episcopacy. 

An  intelligent  reading  of  history  should  correct 
any  misapprehension,  and  an  accurate  under¬ 
standing  of  the  principles  involved  should  rebuke 

‘Bird  Wilson,  D.D.:  Memoir  of  the  Life  of  Bishop  William 
White ,  Philadelphia,  1839,  p.  83. 

108 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


any  one  who  has  a  malevolent  motive.  However, 
even  where  there  is  no  evil  intention,  there  may  be 
an  erroneous  purpose  in  stressing  the  idea  of 
superintendent  as  against  the  use  of  the  churchly 
word  “bishop.”  In  these  movements  sometimes 
there  is  the  idea  of  the  secular  arrayed  against 
the  sacred.  It  certainly  was  a  great  injury  to  the 
church,  when  the  historic  and  clerical  title,  “pre¬ 
siding  elder”  was  stricken  out  and  the  secular  title 
of  “district  superintendent”  was  substituted.  It 
gained  nothing,  but  lost  much,  and  made  for  the 
secularization  of  the  mind  of  the  church.  At  the 
same  time  there  is  a  right  use  of  the  word  ‘ 4  super¬ 
intendent”  and  of  the  idea  of  superintendence. 
‘  ‘  Bishop  ’ ’  was  the  correct  address  for  the  person 
in  the  episcopal  office,  but  for  a  certain  legal  ap¬ 
propriateness  the  term  “superintendent”  empha¬ 
sized  a  special  purpose. 

For  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  episcopacy 
went  on  in  action  testing  itself,  and  in  this  period 
the  same  individual  was  called  both  a  bishop  and 
a  general  superintendent,  the  latter  title  being  used 
to  express  the  fact  that  the  bishop  was  not  a  local¬ 
ized  officer,  like,  for  example,  a  diocesan  prelate, 
but  with  an  oversight  that  was  general,  extending 
over  the  entire  United  States,  and  that,  no  matter 
how  many  bishops  there  were,  they  were  all  gen¬ 
eral  bishops  for  service  anywhere  and  everywhere 
throughout  the  entire  country,  while  each  bishop 
was  equal  in  authority  to  each  and  every  other 
bishop. 

In  the  period  referred  to  the  episcopacy  went 

109 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


on  developing  itself,  as  tlie  bishops  operated 
throughout  the  United  States,  as  the  country  ex¬ 
panded  and  the  population  grew,  until  the  bishops 
and  the  church  had  evolved  a  well  matured  and 
well  understood  episcopal  system,  which  could  be 
spoken  of  as  a  4 4 plan,”  or  “the  plan,”  and,  when 
the  first  written  Constitution  of  the  church  was 
being  formulated,  this  “plan”  was  incorporated 
in  the  Constitution,  and  phrased  4  4  the  plan  of  our 
itinerant  General  Superintendency.”  4 4 The  plan” 
was  not  only  specifically  recited  in  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  but  it  was  so  incorporated  that  the  General 
Conference  cannot  change  it  either  directly  or  in¬ 
directly, 

This  4 4 plan,”  as  stated  in  the  Constitution,  re¬ 
veals,  in  a  condensed,  but  comprehensive,  manner, 
the  nature  of  the  episcopacy  of  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  It  is  a  4 4 superintendency,” 
and  the  bishops  are  the  overseers  of  the  church. 
They  are  not  overseers  in  the  church,  merely;  all 
of  the  bishops  are  general  overseers  of  the  entire 
territory,  so  that  each  and  all  have  authority  and 
equal  authority;  and  where  one  has  authority 
all  have  authority,  so  that  there  can  be  no  locali¬ 
zation  of  any  bishop  who  is  a  general  superintend¬ 
ent  bishop.  Then  this  general  superintendency  is 
an  4  4  itinerant  general  superintendency,  ’  ’  and  each 
and  every  general  superintendent  bishop  cannot 
settle  down  in  a  see  and  simply  administer  there¬ 
from,  but  it  is  his  duty  4  4  To  travel  through  the 
Connection  at  large,”1  and,  4 4 If  a  Bishop  cease 
'Discipline,  1920,  lf208,  §7,  p.  208. 

110 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


from  traveling  at  large  among  the  people  without 
the  consent  of  the  General  Conference,  he  shall 
not  thereafter  exercise,  in  any  degree,  the  episco¬ 
pal  office  in  our  Church.  ’ n 

The  episcopacy  of  “The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America”  is  a 
superintendency,  a  general  superintendency,  and 
an  itinerant  general  superintendency,  but  is  such 
an  episcopacy  according  to  “the  plan  of  our  itin¬ 
erant  general  superintendency  ”  which  was  at  that 
time,  namely,  1808,  well  settled,  and  well  known 
to  the  church,  with  a  long-established  practice 
with  which  all  were  familiar. 

By  the  Constitution  of  the  church  this  matter  is 
placed  beyond  the  power  of  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  either  to  change  this  “plan”  or  to  go  con¬ 
trary  to  it,  powerful  though  that  body  may  be. 

The  Constitution  declares:  “The  General  Con¬ 
ference  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  or  rule 
of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy, 
nor  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General 
Superintendency.  ’  ’1 2 

That  means  not  only  that  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  cannot  change  the  wording  of  this  Constitu¬ 
tional  provision,  but,  further,  that  it  shall  not 
make  a  change  anywhere,  or  in  anything,  for  ex¬ 
ample  in  any  part  of  the  Book  of  Discipline ,  or  in 
practice,  that  would  have  the  effect  of  modify¬ 
ing  “the  plan”  of  our  episcopacy. 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  H214,  p.  161. 

Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3,  Discipline ,  pp.  44,  45. 


* 


111 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  MISSIONARY  BISHOPRIC 


f 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  MISSIONARY  BISHOPRIC 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  had  a  growing  territory  under 
the  advancing  flag  of  the  republic  as  it  kept  up 
with  the  expanding  national  boundaries,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  the  church  was  spreading  its  form 
of  Christianity  at  various  points  outside  the 
United  States  and  within  the  bounds  of  other  polit¬ 
ical  governments.  The  church  was  an  episcopal 
body  and  had  bishops,  who  were  also  called  gen¬ 
eral  superintendents,  who  had  supervision  of  the 
entire  United  States,  and  who  could  go  anywhere 
within  the  national  territory,  but  they  were  “for 
the  United  States,”  as  the  legal  formularies 
stated,  and  could  not  be  located  beyond  the  bor¬ 
ders  of  this  republic.  Concern,  therefore,  was 
manifested  for  the  episcopal  care  of  the  foreign 
mission  fields.  To  loan  a  bishop,  who  belonged 
in  the  United  States,  to  make  a  long,  and  yet,  a 
hasty  trip,  to  a  distant  country,  which  required 
the  temporary  suspension  of  his  regular  work  in 
the  United  States,  could  hardly  be  deemed  just  to 
the  church  at  home,  and  it  was  considered  inade¬ 
quate  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  foreign  missions. 

Further,  it  had  become  clearly  affirmed  that  a 
general  superintendent  who  went  outside  the 
United  States  by  that  act  suspended  his  rights  as 
a  general  superintendent  in  the  United  States. 

115 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


That  was ’not  only  in  legal  affirmations,  but  it  was 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  Bishop  Coke,  who  fre¬ 
quently  went  across  the  Atlantic  and  tarried  in 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  to  help  the  Wesleyan 
body  in  those  countries. 

The  entry  in  the  Conference  Minutes  of  1808  is 
very  significant.  Thus : 

“Quest.  6.  Who  are  the  Superintendents  and 
Bishops? 

“Ans.  Francis  Asbury,  William  McKendree. 

“  Hr.  Coke,  at  the  request  of  the  British 

Conference,  and  by  the  consent  of  our  General 
Conference,  resides  in  Europe :  he  is  not  to  exer¬ 
cise  the  office  of  Superintendent  among  us,  in  the 
United  States,  until  he  be  recalled  by  the  General 
Conference,  or  by  all  the  Annual  Conferences  re¬ 
spectively.  7  ’ 

Being  out  of  the  United  States  and  rendering 
service  abroad  changed  the  status  of  Bishop  Coke 
for  the  time  being,  so  that  he  is  not  listed  as  a 
bishop,  though  his  name  had  headed  the  list  from 
the  beginning,  and  he  could  not 4  ‘  exercise  the  office 
of  Superintendent”  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  “in  the  United  States,”  and  the  only  way 
his  functions  in  the  United  States  could  be  re¬ 
stored  was  by  the  General  Conference,  or  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  recalling  him.  He  was  one 
of  “the  Superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the 
United  States”  “when  present  in  the  States,” 
but  not  when  he  was  resident  outside  this  country, 
and,  outside,  he  could  not  “exercise  the  office  of 
Superintendent”  “inside  this  nation.” 

116 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


A  shadow  of  the  same  principle  is  seen  in  the 
long-established  rule  of  the  Board  of  Bishops 
which  forbids  a  bishop  who  is  out  of  the  United 
States  exercising  his  superintendency  in  a  home 
Conference,  though  he  has  been  duly  assigned  to 
have  charge  of  the  said  Conference.  Under  the 
rule  he  must  not  assume  his  presidency  until  he  is 
in  the  United  States.  In  such  a  case  the  bishop 
who  has  just  had  charge  of  the  Conference  retains 
charge  until  the  newly  assigned  bishop  returns  to 
the  United  States.1 

These  and  various  other  things  show  the  differ¬ 
ence  of  the  standing  of  a  general  superintendent, 
who  happens  to  be  absent  from  the  United  States, 
as  to  matters  of  administration  in  this  country. 

4  4  The  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintend¬ 
ency,”  as  it  was  phrased  in  the  first  written  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  church,  and  still  is  so  phrased,  be¬ 
cause  it  has  never  been  changed,  embodied  all 
these  principles,  as  the  history  and  the  legal  docu¬ 
ments  show,  and  they  stand  as  from  the  early 
years,  and  through  the  generations  that  followed, 
and  must  continue  to  stand  in  law  and  practice,  as 
long  as  they  are  in  the  Constitution,  which  cannot 
be  changed  even  by  the  General  Conference. 

The  general  superintendent  was  “for  the  United 
States,’ ’  and  there  he  could  not  be  located  in  a 
particular  section,  for  he  was  an  “itinerant,”  not 
in  a  local  but  a  “general  superintendency”;  and  if 
he  could  not  be  located  in  a  particular  part  of  the 
home  church,  his  rightful  sphere,  he  could  not  be 
mishops’  Rulings,  Approved  by  the  General  Conference. 

117 


r 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUBCH 


located  constitutionally  in  any  particular  foreign 
mission  field.  That  was  what  the  law  said,  what 
the  church  understood,  and  what  the  church  car¬ 
ried  out  in  its  practice,  and  these  facts  prohibited 
the  location  of  a  general  superintendent  in  a  for¬ 
eign  field. 

However,  the  legal  difficulty  was  not  the  only 
difficulty.  The  very  fact  that  a  bishop  who  was  a 
general  superintendent  “for  the  United  States,” 
a  homogeneous  field,  for  which  a  bishop  who  was 
adapted  to  one  section  was  adapted  to  the  work 
in  every  section,  was  presumably  unadapted  to 
the  work  in  a  foreign  field  where  there  are  wide 
differences  in  race,  in  language,  in  history,  and 
in  usages.  That  being  the  case,  the  bishop  who 
might  be  a  brilliant  success  in  the  home  church 
might  be  a  dismal  failure  in  the  foreign  mission. 

To  do  proper  work  in  a  foreign  country  the 
bishop  either  had  to  know  these  peculiarities  of 
the  foreign  land  and  its  peoples,  before  he  was 
selected,  or  he  had  to  be  assured  time  enough  in 
the  field  to  learn  these  things,  and,  then  time 
enough  to  give  the  field  the  benefit  of  his  acquired 
knowledge  and  his  experience. 

The  itinerant  bishop  flitting  from  field  to  field, 
could  not  meet  these  peculiar  needs,  and  it  would 
not  be  economical  wisdom,  when  the  bishop  began 
to  master  his  foreign  task  to  call  him  back  to  per¬ 
manent  work  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
where  these  foreign  things  just  mastered  are  of 
little  or  no  special  value  in  the  practical  work. 
Kather  than  to  take  a  man  well  fitted  for  the  epis- 

118 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


copacy  in  the  United  States  and  send  him  to  a 
foreign  country,  where  he  would  have  almost 
everything  to  learn,  and  then  to  hurry  him  back, 
it  would  seem  better  to  take  a  missionary,  who 
already  has  the  knowledge  and  the  experience, 
and  make  him  a  missionary  bishop  for  his  own 
field.  The  law  and  the  conviction  of  the  church 
indicated  that  the  general  superintendent  bishops 
were  for  the  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  the  country  where  was  located  the  seat 
of  authority  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Missionary  work  had  been  established  and  was 
beginning  to  develop  in  Liberia,  in  South  America 
and  in  China,  and  the  question  of  direct  and  im¬ 
mediate  oversight  in  these  foreign  lands  was  im¬ 
pressing  itself  on  the  mind  of  the  church.  The 
denomination  was  episcopal,  and  it  considered 
that  the  oversight  in  a  foreign  mission  should  have 
an  episcopal  character,  and  the  question  was  as  to 
what  kind  of  episcopacy  it  should  be.  The  idea  of 
sending  a  general  superintendent  bishop  could  not 
be  entertained.  Both  law  and  usage  were  against 
that,  but  it  did  not  follow  that  the  need  could  not 
be  met  in  some  other  way.  That  the  general  super¬ 
intendents  were  not  for  the  foreign  work  was  an 
established  conviction  of  the  church,  and  the  pre¬ 
vailing  judgment  that  they  could  not  be  placed  in 
foreign  mission  fields  is  shown  in  many  writings 
and  records. 

Thus  in  the  work  on  Methodist  Episcopal  Mis¬ 
sions,1  written  by  Missionary  Secretary  Doctor 


‘New  York,  1895,  Vol.  I,  p.  237. 

119 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


John  M.  Reid,  in  1879,  and  later  revised  and  ex¬ 
tended  by  Doctor  John  T.  Gracey,  himself  an  ex¬ 
perienced  missionary  in  India,  we  find  this :  ‘  ‘  The 
Constitution  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
clearly  forbade  a  local  superintendency.  ’  ’ 

Then,  referring  to  the  visit  of  Bishop  Levi  Scott 
to  Liberia,  the  same  work  says:  “The  visit  had 
also  served  to  strengthen  the  conviction  of  the 
home  church  that  it  was  impossible  to  superintend 
the  work  in  the  foreign  field  without  a  local  episco¬ 
pacy.  ’ n 

After  much  thought  the  church  at  last  concluded 
that  it  must  have  another  class  of  bishops  than 
those  who  were  general  superintendents.  In  other 
words,  it  must  have  a  class  just  for  foreign  work, 
who  could  be  located  in  designated  foreign  coun¬ 
tries,  where  they  would,  so  to  speak,  settle  down 
continuously  and  become  specialists  and  experts 
in  their  particular  locality.  To  have  this  would 
require  not  a  mere  vote  of  the  General  Conference, 
but  a  change  in  the  Constitution,  and  this  required 
the  full  constitutional  process  to  make  an  amend¬ 
ment  in  the  third  restriction. 

In  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  the  Third  Re¬ 
strictive  Rule  at  that  time  read :  4  ‘  They  shall  not 
change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  govern¬ 
ment,  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy,  or  destroy 
the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Superintend¬ 
ency.  ’  ’2 

M.  M.  Reid  and  John  T.  Gracey:  Methodist  Episcopal  Mis¬ 
sions,  New  York,  1895,  vol.  I,  p.  287. 

discipline,  1856,  “General  Conference,”  p.  36. 

120 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


This  restrictive  rule  was  one  of  the  limitations 
on  the  power  of  the  General  Conference.  This 
body  could  not  change  the  Constitution  nor  go  con¬ 
trary  to  it,  but  it  could  propose  a  change  and  so 
initiate  the  process  of  amendment.  Accordingly, 
the  General  Conference  of  1856  formulated  and 
proposed  an  amendment  to  the  above-mentioned 
“Third  Restrictive  Rule”  under  the  form  of  the 
following  resolution : 

“Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  to  alter  the  Discipline^  para¬ 
graph  3,  section  2,  part  I,  by  adding  the  words, 
after  the  word  ‘  superintendency, ’  in  the  fourth 
line,  ‘but  may  appoint  a  missionary  bishop  or 
superintendent  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions, 
limiting  his  episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  same  re¬ 
spectively.’  ,n 

This  amendment  of  1856  was  duty  concurred  in 
by  the  affirmative  vote  of  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  became  part  of  the  church’s  Constitution,  and 
at  that  time  the  whole  restriction  reads:  “They 
shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our 
government  so  as  to  do  away  Episcopacy,  nor  de¬ 
stroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Superin¬ 
tendency;  but  may  appoint  a  Missionary  Bishop 
or  Superintendent  for  any  of  our  Foreign  Mis¬ 
sions,  limiting  his  Episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the 
same  respectively.  ’  ’2 

This  added  a  radically  different  episcopacy,  so 
that  the  church  had  two  kinds  of  bishops,  one  for 

^neral  Conference  Journals ,  vol.  iii,  1856,  pp.  144-146. 
*lbid. 


121 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


the  home  field  in  the  United  States,  and  the  other 
for  the  foreign  mission  field.  The  general  super¬ 
intendent  was  an  itinerating  bishop  moving  about 
in  the  United  States,  while  the  missionary  bishop 
was  located  in  one  particular  foreign  field  for 
which  he  was  elected  and  to  which  his  episcopal 
jurisdiction  was  limited.  This  was  a  very  impor¬ 
tant  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  and  yet  after 
the  amendment  was  made  it  would  appear  to  have 
been  carelessly,  if  not  strangely,  handled. 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1860  the  bishops 
announced  that  the  amendment  above  named  had 
been  duly  submitted  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
and  that  they  had  given  the  requisite  majority  for 
the  amendment,  so  that  the  restriction  had  been  so 
“altered  as  to  allow  the  appointment  of  a  mission¬ 
ary  bishop  or  superintendent  for  any  of  our  for¬ 
eign  missions.”1 

The  result  of  the  vote  having  been  announced 
it  was  then  the  duty  of  the  editor  of  the  Discipline 
to  print  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule  as  so 
amended.  Any  one,  however,  who  examines  the 
Discipline  of  1860  will  be  surprised  to  find  as  he 
looks  through  the  chapter  on  “The  General  Con¬ 
ference’  ’  that  the  amendment  was  not  inserted. 
So  it  was  not  inserted  in  the  Restrictive  Rule  in 
1864,  and  it  was  not  in  1868.  All  these  quadren- 
niums  had  passed  and  yet  the  amendment  was  not 
inserted  in  its  proper  place. 

Of  course  the  amendment  was  legally  in  the 
Discipline  even  if  it  had  not  been  printed  therein. 

General  Conference  Journals ,  vol.  iv,  1860,  p.  313. 

122 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


It  was  in  the  J ournals  of  the  General  and  the  An¬ 
nual  Conferences,  and,  though  it  did  not  appear 
in  the  Restrictive  Rule  the  bishops  carried  on 
their  administration  and  consecrated  men  for  the 
missionary  episcopacy.  Even  now  it  must  seem 
strange  that  the  amendment  was  not  recorded  in 
the  book  of  Discipline,  and  that  the  omission  ap¬ 
parently  was  unnoticed. 

In  1872,  Bishop  William  L.  Harris,  just  elected 
bishop,  was  the  editor  of  the  book  of  Discipline 
bearing  that  date.  Turning  to  the  Discipline  of 
1872,  we  find  the  first  attempt  to  print  the  amend¬ 
ment  in  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule.  Bishop  Wil¬ 
liam  L.  Harris  was  such  an  exact  and  businesslike 
man  that  he  might  have  been  expected  to  discover 
the  omission  and  to  have  inserted  the  amendment 
in  the  right  place.  Our  surprise,  then,  was  great 
to  find  that  the  insertion  in  1872  was  incorrect, 
and  that  the  error  was  carried  on  for  about  a 
score  of  years  in  the  succeeding  books  of  Discip¬ 
line ,  and  that  David  Sherman,  D.D.,  painstaking 
though  he  was,  perpetuated  the  error  in  his  var¬ 
ious  editions  of  his  History  of  the  Revisions  of  the 
Discipline. 

Beginning  with  1872  the  amendment  was 
printed  in  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule  as  follows: 
“but  may  appoint  a  missionary  bishop  or  super¬ 
intendent  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting 
his  jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively.”1 

One  word,  and  a  very  important  word,  was  omit¬ 
ted.  The  Discipline  of  1872  read,  “limiting  his 

1 Discipline ,  1872,  Tf95,  pp.  52,  53. 

123 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


jurisdiction/’  but  as  proposed  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1856,  and  concurred  in  by  the  An¬ 
nual  Conferences  it  read,  “  limiting  his  episcopal 
jurisdiction.  ’  ’  How  this  happened  we  cannot  say. 
An  editor,  or  proof-reader,  might  have  thought 
the  word  superfluous,  or  it  might  have  been  acci¬ 
dental. 

No  one  had  any  right  to  exercise  private  judg¬ 
ment  in  such  a  matter.  The  word  ought  to  have 
been  printed  because  with  it  in,  the  amendment  had 
been  adopted.  Further  the  word  was  of  vital  im¬ 
portance,  for  there  is  a  difference  between  “his 
jurisdiction”  and  “his  episcopal  jurisdiction,” 
and  if  through  all  those  long  years  “episcopal” 
had  been  in,  it  might  have  prevented  much  con¬ 
fused  controversv  as  to  the  status  of  the  mission- 

* 

ary  bishopric.1 

In  my  studies  of  some  years  ago,  I  discovered 
the  omission  and  called  the  attention  of  Bishop 
Edward  G.  Andrews,  then  editor  of  the  Discipline, 
to  the  matter,  and  demonstrated  the  correct  read¬ 
ing.  He  accepted  the  facts  and  made  the  correc¬ 
tion  in  the  forthcoming  Discipline  for  1892,  after 
a  lapse  of  twenty  years  from  1872,  or  thirty- two 
years  from  1860,  and  the  word  has  stood  there 
ever  since. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  of  1856 
missionary  bishops  were  elected  and  consecrated 
for  Liberia,  the  first  to  be  so  elected  and  conse- 

irrhomas  B.  Neely,  D.D.,  LL.D. :  The  Governing  Conference 
in  Methodism ,  Cincinnati  and  New  York,  1892,  pp.  452.  See 
pp.  417-419. 


124 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


crated  being  the  Rev.  Francis  Burns,  a  colored 
man,  who  was  consecrated  in  the  United  States, 
on  the  4th  of  October,  1858.  After  his  decease, 
the  Rev.  John  Wright  Roberts,  another  man  of 
color,  was  elected  Missionary  Bishop  for  Liberia, 
and  was  consecrated  in  New  York  City,  on  June 
20,  1866.  He  died  on  January  30,  1875,  and  the 
country  was  left  without  a  missionary  bishop  for 
some  years. 

It  was  natural  that  the  missionary  episcopacy 
should  first  be  applied  to  Liberia,  which  was  the 
oldest  existing  mission  of  the  denomination,  and 
the  early  experiments  justified  this  new  form  of 
episcopacy  for  foreign  fields. 

In  1884  there  was  a  new  interest  and  a  new  de¬ 
parture  in  the  missionary  bishopric,  and,  when 
certain  educated  colored  ministers  declined  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  responsibility  of  taking  up  the  duties  of 
a  missionary  bishop  in  Liberia,  the  thought  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1884  turned  toward  the 
Rev.  William  Taylor,  and  by  a  large  vote  he  was 
elected  “Missionary  Bishop  of  Africa.”  Bishop 
William  Taylor  was  one  of  the  greatest  mission¬ 
aries  of  modern  times.  He  had  made  missionary 
tours  in  all  the  continents  and  in  Australia  and 
other  islands  of  the  seas,  and  had  marvelous  suc¬ 
cess.  He  could  not  be  made  bishop  for  Liberia, 
or  any  other  single  country.  Nothing  less  than  a 
continent  was  fitting  for  him,  and  so  he,  the  first 
white  man  to  be  made  a  missionary  bishop  in  his 
church,  was  elected  and  consecrated  “Missionary 
Bishop  of  Africa.” 


125 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


The  missionary  bishop  is  a  superintendent,  but 
not  a  general  superintendent.  The  title  “mission¬ 
ary  bishop’ ’  does  not  discount  him,  for  he  is  a 
genuine  bishop.  He  is  limited  to  his  mission  field, 
but  that  may  be,  and  has  been,  a  whole  continent, 
and  his  limiting  is  simply  liberty — liberty  to  stay, 
and  learn  the  customs  and  characteristics  of  a 
peculiar  land  and  people,  and  liberty  to  stay  and 
apply  the  knowledge  of  language,  of  race,  and  of 
usage,  that  he  has  learned. 

This  was  a  great  and  wise  adjustment.  There 
was  the  home  field  under  the  American  flag — a 
vast  homogeneous  field  under  one  government,  one 
language,  and  a  common  moral  and  religious  ideal, 
where  the  bishops  could  itinerate  with  equal  effec¬ 
tiveness  anywhere.  On  the  other  hand,  the  world 
beyond  and  around,  with  many  governments;, 
many  races,  many  languages,  and  various  laws 
and  usages,  presented  a  different  problem  and 
called  for  a  bishop  who  could  stay  with  his  people 
and  year  by  year  acquire  knowledge  to  enable  him 
to  master  a  peculiar  situation  and  educate  those 
under  his  care  in  the  truth  and  ways  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  and  Christian  civilization. 

The  wisdom  of  the  general  superintendency  for 
the  United  States,  and  the  wisdom  of  the  mission¬ 
ary  episcopacy  for  foreign  lands,  with  their  mis¬ 
cellaneous  conditions,  have  been  demonstrated  by 
the  success  of  the  church  at  home  and  abroad  in 
the  more  than  three  score  years  since  the  mission¬ 
ary  episcopacy  was  established.  The  general 
superintendency  is  best  adapted  for  the  United 

126 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

States,  and  the  missionary  episcopacy  for  foreign 
lands. 

With  the  new  indorsement  of  the  missionary 
episcopacy,  Bishop  William  Taylor  went  forth  as 
missionary  bishop  for  Africa  and  for  twelve 
years,  as  bishop  in  charge,  he  compelled  the  world 
to  think  of  the  religious  needs  of  the  African  con¬ 
tinent,  for  the  field  was  no  longer  Liberia,  but 
Africa. 

During  Bishop  Taylor  ’s  first  quadrennium,  and 
especially,  toward  the  approach  of  the  following 
General  Conference,  a  vigorous  discussion  about 
the  missionary  bishopric  sprung  up  in  the  church 
press.  One  paper  in  particular  was  quite  active 
in  the  matter,  and  there  was  a  feeling  that  there 
was  some  opposition  to  Bishop  Taylor  or  his 
methods,  and  that  inference  seemed  to  cause,  to 
some  extent,  a  division  among  many,  so  that  some 
seemed  to  be  pro-Taylor  and  others  anti-Taylor, 
at  least  to  some  degree.  The  real  trouble,  how¬ 
ever,  was  that  a  number  did  not  have  an  accurate 
conception  as  to  the  status  of  the  missionary  bish¬ 
opric  and  as  to  what  was  involved  in  the  actual 
administration  of  the  office,  a  fact  likely  to  arise  in 
any  General  Conference  through  the  change  in  the 
personnel  as  the  older  men  who  did  know  pass 
from  the  field  of  action  and  their  places  are  taken 
by  new  men  who  have  not  yet  mastered  all  the 
principles  in  the  polity  of  the  church.  However 
it  may  have  been,  there  was  an  expectation  that  in 
the  General  Conference  the  differences  would  pro¬ 
voke  days  of  fiery  debate,  but  as  to  what  side 

127 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


would  have  the  majority  was  not  clear  until  after 
the  Conference  had  convened.  The  subject  was 
sent  to  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1888.  Of  this  large  com¬ 
mittee  the  Reverend  William  H.  Olin,  D.D.,  of  the 
Wyoming  Conference,  was  chairman.  A  Subcom¬ 
mittee  on  the  Missionary  Bishopric  was  appointed 
and  the  writer  found  himself  on  this  subcommit¬ 
tee.  The  subcommittee  promptly  met  for  organi¬ 
zation,  and  it  unanimously  elected  the  writer  to  be 
its  chairman. 

Immediately  I  wrote  the  report,  and  the  next 
night  submitted  it  to  the  subcommittee,  which 
adopted  it  without  a  dissenting  vote,  and  it  was 
reported  to  the  main  committee,  which  scanned  it 
with  the  greatest  care,  and  after  discussion, 
adopted  it  with  an  enthusiastic  vote.  Then 
I  was  selected  to  represent  the  Committee  on  Epis¬ 
copacy  in  presenting  the  report  to  the  General 
Conference  and  speaking  for  the  Committee  dur¬ 
ing  the  various  stages  of  procedure.  The  action 
on  the  report  on  the  Missionary  Bishopric  is  stated 
in  the  Journal  for  Saturday  morning,  May  19, 
1888. 1 

The  report  was  an  historical  and  legal  analysis 
of  the  misionary  episcopacy  as  found  in  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  this  analysis 
covered  eight  questions,  as  follows: 

“1.  The  first  question  raised  is  whether  a  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishop  is  a  true  Bishop  Vy  “2.  Whether 
a  Missionary  Bishop  is  what  the  Discipline  terms 

1Gteneral  Conference  Journal,  1888,  pp.  300,  301. 

128 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


a  General  Superintendent  V  ’  4  4  3.  What  are  the 
limitations  of  the  power  of  a  Missionary  Bishop 
as  compared  with  a  Bishop  who  is  a  General 
Superintendent  ?”  4  4  4.  Whether  a  Missionary 
Bishop  is  subordinate  to  the  General  Superintend¬ 
ents  or  any  one  of  them?”  4  4 5.  Whether  a  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  can  by  resolution  take  from  a  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishop,  the  qualifying  word  ‘missionary/ 
and  leave  him  a  Bishop  of  the  other  class — that  is 
to  say  a  General  Superintendent?”  4  4 6.  Whether 
a  Missionary  Bishop  should  receive  his  support 
from  4 the  Episcopal  Fund’  or  from  the  funds  of 
the  Missionary  Society?”  4  4  7.  Whether  the  pay¬ 
ing  of  a  Missionary  Bishop  from  the  Missionary 
Fund  would  affect  his  status  as  a  Bishop?”  and, 
4  4  8.  Whether  a  Missionary  Bishop  should  have 
any  relation  to  the  Missionary  Society?” 

The  report  answered  these  questions,  and  at 
some  length  so  as  to  make  the  status  of  a  mission¬ 
ary  bishop  perfectly  plain,  and  then  the  series  of 
questions  was  followed  by  a  summary  of  num¬ 
bered  answers  condensed  from  the  preceding  part 
of  the  report. 

This  summary  as  finally  adopted  was  as  follows : 

441.  That  a  Missionary  Bishop  is  a  Bishop 
elected  for  a  specified  foreign  mission  field,  with 
full  episcopal  powers,  but  with  Episcopal  juris¬ 
diction  limited  to  the  foreign  mission  field  for 
which  he  was  elected. 

4  4  2.  That  a  Missionary  Bishop  is  not,  in  the 
meanings  of  the  Discipline,  a  General  Superin¬ 
tendent. 


i 


129 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


“3.  That  a  Missionary  Bishop  is  not  subor¬ 
dinate  to  the  General  Superintendents,  but  is  co- 
ordinate  with  them  in  authority  in  the  field  to 
which  he  is  appointed,  and  is  amenable  for  his 
conduct  to  the  General  Conference,  as  is  a  Gen¬ 
eral  Superintendent. 

“4.  That  the  election  of  a  Missionary  Bishop 
carries  with  it  the  assignment  to  a  specified  for¬ 
eign  mission  field,  and  that  a  Missionary  Bishop 
cannot  be  made  a  General  Superintendent  except 
by  a  distinct  election  to  that  office. 

“5.  That  a  Missionary  Bishop  should  receive 
his  support  from  the  Episcopal  Fund. 

“6.  That  a  Missionary  Bishop  should,  in  his 
field,  cooperate  with  the  Missionary  Society  of  the 
Church  in  the  same  way  that  a  General  Superin¬ 
tendent  cooperates  in  the  foreign  mission  field 
over  which  he  has  Episcopal  charge. 

“7.  That  when  a  Missionary  Bishop,  by  death 
or  other  cause,  ceases  to  perform  Episcopal  duty 
for  the  foreign  field  to  which  he  was  assigned  by 
the  General  Conference,  the  General  Superintend¬ 
ents  at  once  take  supervision  of  said  field. 

“8.  That  in  the  matter  of  a  transfer  of  a 
preacher  from  a  field  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
Missionary  Bishop  to  a  Conference  under  the 
Episcopal  supervision  of  a  General  Superintend¬ 
ent,  or  from  a  Conference  under  the  Episcopal 
supervision  of  a  General  Superintendent  to  a 
field  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Missionary 
Bishop,  it  shall  require  mutual  agreement  between 
the  two  Bishops,  and  a  similar  agreement  shall 

130 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


be  required  between  the  Bishops  having  charge, 
when  the  proposed  transfer  is  between  two  foreign 
fields  over  which  there  are  Missionary  Bishops. 

“9.  That  in  the  matter  of  a  complaint  against 
or  the  trial  of  ‘a  Missionary  Bishop’  the  prelimin¬ 
ary  steps  shall  be  a>s  in  the  case  of  a  General  Super¬ 
intendent  ;  but  the  Missionary  Bishop  may  be  tried 
before  a  Judicial  Conference  in  the  United  States 
of  America.”  1 

There  was  very  little  opposition  to  the  report 
and  it  was  adopted  overwhelmingly.  It  finally  re¬ 
ceived  the  approval  of  the  Conference  almost  ex¬ 
actly  as  I  had  written  it  and  as  it  came  from  the 
Committee  on  Episcopacy.  In  the  matter  of  sup¬ 
port  I  had  written  that  it  should  come  from  the 
Missionarv  Fund,  because  the  work  was  in  a  mis- 
sion  field,  and  that  was  the  view  of  the  committee, 
but  an  amendment  was  offered  changing  the  sup¬ 
port  to  the  Episcopal  Fund.  That  was  presum¬ 
ably  intended  as  a  compliment  to  Bishop  Taylor, 
and  it  went  through,  but  the  next  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  in  1892,  put  it  back  on  the  missionary  treas¬ 
ury. 

The  adoption  of  this  report  cleared  the  atmos¬ 
phere,  and  put  the  missionary  bishopric  on  a 
proper  basis,  as  it  gave  it  dignity,  independence, 
and  opportunity,  so  that  some  began  to  say  that  it 
was  the  greatest  bishopric  in  the  church,  and  all 
saw  the  missionary  episcopacy  revealed  as  an  ex- 

^neral  Conference  Journal,  1888,  pp.  392-396,  which  inci¬ 
dentally  shows  that  the  seat  of  authority  is  in  the  United 
States. 


131 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ceedingly  noble  office’  that  any  minister  might  feel 
proud  to  fill. 

The  discussion  and  adoption  of  the  report  led  to 
a  better  understanding,  and  made  it  possible  at 
that  General  Conference  of  1888  to  elect  the  mis¬ 
sionary,  Doctor  James  M.  Thoburn,  as  missionary 
bishop  for  India,  and  his  marvelous  career  showed 
what  the  missionary  episcopacy  could  do.  Then,  in 
1896,  it  made  possible  the  election  of  Doctor 
Joseph  C.  Hartzell,  to  succeed  Bishop  Taylor  for 
Africa,  where  he  extended  the  missions  into  North 
Africa  and  from  Cairo  to  the  Cape,  and  kings  and 
princes  and  the  great  men  of  three  continents 
treated  him  as  their  equal  and  deemed  it  a  pleas¬ 
ure  to  help  him  in  his  work,  which  as  an  active 
bishop  continued  through  twenty  years.  Such  men 
and  others  who  followed  them  have  demonstrated 
that  the  missionary  episcopacy  was  no  inferior 
office. 

The  General  Conference  of  1888  was  only 
another  occasion  when  the  church  practically  pro¬ 
nounced  that  the  proper  episcopacy  for  the  for¬ 
eign  field  was  the  missionary  episcopacy. 

Prom  the  beginning  the  general  superintendent 
bishops  were  for  the  United  States  of  America. 
That  was  in  “the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general 
superintendency, ’ ’  and  when  “the  plan”  was  put 
in  the  written  Constitution  of  1808,  it  was  simply 
saying  what  everybody  knew — that  it  was  uncon¬ 
stitutional  to  locate  any  general  superintendent  in 
a  foreign  field.  Then  this  was  so  thoroughly  un¬ 
derstood  that  the  General  Conference  of  1856  de- 

132 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


vised  the  missionary  episcopacy  that  there  could 
be  a  constitutional  bishopric  in  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

The  Constitution  that  made  it  unconstitutional 
to  locate  a  general  superintendent  in  a  foreign 
field  in  1808,  and  in  1856,  and  the  Constitution 
since  1856  that  made  it  constitutional  to  locate  a 
missionary  bishop  in  a  foreign  mission  is  just  the 
same  now  as  it  has  been  through  these  long  years. 

How  could  any  one  with  the  Third  Restrictive 
Rule  before  him  fail  to  see  that  a  general  superin¬ 
tendent  cannot  be  a  resident  bishop  in  a  foreign 
mission,  and  that  missionary  bishops  are  the  only 
kind  the  church  is  authorized  to  place  in  foreign 
mission  fields? 

“The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor 
alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to 
do  away  Episcopacy,  nor  destroy  the  plan  of  our 
itinerant  General  Superintendency;  but  may  elect 
a  Missionary  Bishop  or  Superintendent  for  any  of 
our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his  Episcopal  juris¬ 
diction  to  the  same  respectively.  ’ n 

The  missionary  bishop  may  be  localized;  the 
general  superintendent  cannot  be  localized. 

Personal  Note. — It  may  be  recalled  that  the 
writer  of  these  sentiments’  though  a  general  super¬ 
intendent  bishop,  was  a  resident  for  some  years, 
with  episcopal  duties  in  a  foreign  field,  and  some 
one  may  be  inclined  to  contrast  that  fact  with  the 
facts  and  arguments  presented  in  these  pages. 

In  view  of  that,  it  is  proper  to  say  that,  though 


discipline,  1920,  Constitution  Art.  x,  §3,  1(46,  §3,  pp.  44,  45. 

133 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


a  general  superintendent  bishop,  I  was  assigned  a 
residence  in  the  city  of  Buenos  Ayres,  this  does 
not  modify  the  force  of  the  facts  and  arguments 
herein  presented,  unless  in  that  it  gives  them  added 
strength. 

I  did  not  select  the  place  of  residence,  but  it 
was  chosen  for  me  and  I  was  assigned  to  that 
point  by  the  General  Conference  which  followed 
the  recommendations  of  a  committee.  So  I  went 
because  I  was  ordered  by  authority  which  relieved 
me  of  responsibility. 

I  went  in  good  spirits  and  worked  hard  and 
faithfully,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  voted  ap¬ 
proval  of  my  administration  and  requested  that  I 
be  reassigned  to  the  same  South  American  field. 
A  leading  member  of  the  General  Conference 
Committee,  however,  stated  that,  on  account  of 
my  wife’s  illness,  it  would  not  be  right  to  send  me 
back. 

After  my  transfer  from  that  field  a  bronze  tab¬ 
let  was  placed  in  the  Rosario  church  which  recites 
that  I  was  the  “ primer o  obispo  residente  en  Sud 
America” — the  first  resident  bishop  in  South 
America — and,  about  five  years  after  my  transfer 
to  the  United  States,  the  Eastern  South  America 
Conference,  without  any  intimation  to  me,  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  repeated  indorsements,  unanimously  by  a 
rising  vote  passed  a  remarkable  resolution  of  ap¬ 
preciation  of  their  first  resident  bishop,  referring 
to  his  administration  and  alluding  to  special 
things  accomplished,  for  example,  books  written 
in  the  interest  of  South  American  Missions,  and 

134 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


saying  “that  he  shall  always  be  remembered  by 
us  with  sincere  admiration  and  gratitude  both  on 
account  of  his  wise  and  just  administration,  and 
on  account  of  his  constant  interest  and  sacrifices 
in  this  South  American  work,  high  monuments  to 
his  pastoral  fidelity  being:  “La  Predicacion,” 
“Juan  Wesley,”  “South  America,”  etc.,  etc. 

The  Rev.  A.  G.  Tallon,  who  forwarded  the  reso¬ 
lution,  the  son  of  the  never-to-be-forgotten  Doctor 
and  Professor  William  Tallon,  closes  by  saying: 
4  4  This  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  addressing  you 
as  a  beloved  father  in  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.” 

I  left-a  good  part  of  my  heart  in  South  America 
and  have  never  lost  interest  in  this  foreign  field 
so  specially  important  to  all  Americans,  but  my 
experience  there,  my  knowledge  of  foreign  mis¬ 
sions,  and  my  long  time  study  of  the  law  and  his¬ 
tory  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  strongly 
confirm  what  I  have  stated  and  proved  in  this  book 
as  to  the  home  church  and  its  foreign  mission 
fields. 


t 


135 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  BOARD  OF  BISHOPS 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  BOARD  OF  BISHOPS 

The  episcopacy  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  church,  and 
has  been  so  from  the  birth  of  the  organization,  and 
was  announced  in  the  title  of  the  body,  and,  fur¬ 
ther,  was  foreshadowed  by  the  polity  of  Wesley, 
and  of  the  early  Wesleyan  societies  in  Great  Brit¬ 
ain  and  in  America,  and  so  important  has  it  been 
regarded  that  this  episcopacy  is  protected  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  church  so  that  it  cannot  be 
legally  destroyed,  changed,  or  modified  by  ordi¬ 
nary  legislation  or  the  mutation  of  passing  events, 
or  waves  >of  popular  commotion. 

There  has  always  been  a  body  of  bishops  since 
the  organization  of  the  church.  At  the  beginning 
there  were  two  bishops,  Bishop  Thomas  Coke  and 
Bishop  Francis  Asbury.  The  number  has  varied 
from  time  to  time.  In  1920  there  were  forty-two, 
and  five  retired  missionary  bishops.  But  there  has 
always  been  an  episcopal  body  made  up  of  the  * 
bishops  of  the  church  at  the  time,  whether  the 
number  was  small  or  large.  If  there  were  only 
two  bishops,  they  constituted  the  body  of  the  epis¬ 
copacy.  If  there  was  only  one  living  bishop  he 
made  the  body,  and,  as  ministers  were  made 
bishops  they  passed  up  into  the  episcopal  body, 

139 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


which  always  stood  out  as  one  of  the  distinct  bod¬ 
ies  of  the  denomination. 

To  be  this  distinct  body  did  not  require  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  any  formal  resolution,  or  any  action  under 
the  statute  law.  In  the  very  nature  of  things  the 
episcopal  body  came  into  being  with  the  creation 
of  the  first  bishops  at  the  organization  of  the 
church,  and  as  soon  as  any  one  was  made  a  bishop 
he  was  set  apart  with  his  brother  bishops,  at  first 
under  the  unwritten  Constitution  of  the  church, 
and  under  “the  plan,”  which  existed  before  the 
written  Constitution  of  1808,  and  then  was  em¬ 
bodied  in  the  written  organic  law  of  the  church. 

Hence,  as  soon  as  there  were  bishops,  there  was 
a  body  of  bishops  who  came  together  because  they 
had  been  made  bishops,  with  duties  already  marked 
out  for  them  by  the  episcopacy  itself  in  ‘ 4  the  plan 
of  our  itinerant  General  Superintendency,  ’  ’ 1 
and  by  the  formal  Constitution,  and  in  the  dis¬ 
charge  of  these  duties  they  are  protected  by  the 
Constitution  which  empowers  them.  Naturally, 
and  logically,  and  also,  legally,  when  they  come 
together,  each  the  equal  of  any  other,  it  is  their 
duty  to  decide  as  to  the  details  of  their  episcopal 
work. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  there  are 
just  three  great  continuous  bodies:  the  laity,  the 
ministry,  and  the  episcopacy — the  laity  forming 
the  body  of  the  membership,  the  regular  minis¬ 
try  as  in  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  bishops 
of  the  church.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  an 


'Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3. 


140 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


order  of  advance,  or  gradation.  All  begin  in  the 
laity,  for  everybody  in  the  church  at  one  period 
belonged  to  the  laity. 

Out  of  the  laity  the  ministry  comes,  and  out 
of  the  ministry  comes  the  episcopacy.  Then, 
when  one  is  elevated  from  the  laity  into  the 
ministry,  he  becomes  a  member  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  and  likewise,  when  a  minister  is  made 
a  bishop,  he  is  lifted  out  of  the  Annual  Conference 
and  placed  in  the  body  of  the  bishops  and  becomes 
a  member  of  the  episcopal  body,  and  under  “the 
plan,”  this  episcopal  body  has  its  own  constitu¬ 
tional  functions.  The  laity  have  their  own  place 
and  their  own  activities  in  the  church;  the  minis¬ 
ters  in  the  Annual  Conference  have  theirs;  and 
the  bishops  have  theirs ;  each  with  some  similari¬ 
ties,  but  each  with  marked  differences. 

The  bishops  continue  to  be  ministers,  but  with 
added  duties,  responsibilities,  and  powers.  They 
continue  to  have  the  preaching  function,  and  the 
sacramental  function,  but  they  have  the  added 
duties  of  overseeing  the  work  of  the  church  and 
shepherding  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  associated 
with  these  are  many  detailed  duties. 

Thus  there  are  three  great,  separate,  and  con¬ 
tinuous  classes,  or  bodies,  in  the  church,  namely, 
the  laity,  the  ministry,  and  the  episcopate,  the  first 
of  which  appears  in  the  local  church,  the  second  in 
the  Annual  Conference,  and  the  third  in  the  epis¬ 
copal  body,  or  body  of  the  bishops. 

The  General  Conference,  it  will  be  perceived, 
does  not  belong  to  this  classification,  first,  because 

141 


i 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


it  does  not  contain  or  stand  for  one  class,  and, 
second,  because  the  General  Conference  is  not  a 
continuous,  or  permanent  body,  but  a  representa¬ 
tive  gathering  which  is  made  up  of  delegates  for 
the  time,  and  who  may  never  be  chosen  again,  and 
who  cease  to  be  members  with  the  dissolution  of 
the  body. 

Bodies  of  bishops  collectively  are  called  by  dif¬ 
ferent  titles.  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
calls  its  body  of  bishops  the  House  of  Bishops,  and 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  styles 
its  body  of  bishops  the  College  of  Bishops. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  spoke  of  its 
bishops  collectively  as  “The  Bishops,”  a  body 
that  existed  and  which  met  from  time  to  time>  as 
was  deemed  necessary.  In  recent  years  the  church 
has  gradually  settled  down  to  the  title  “The 
Board  of  Bishops,”  as  indicating  its  body  of 
bishops,  though  the  simple  colloquial  title,  “The 
Bishops,”  meant  just  as  much. 

The  title  “Board”  seems  to  have  come  in  when 
the  fashion  prevailed  of  changing  the  title  “So¬ 
ciety”  to  “Board.”  Thus  the  “Missionary  So¬ 
ciety”  became  the  “Board  of  Missions.”  By  a 
very  natural  process  the  popular  trend  probably 
reached  and  included  the  bishops,  and  they  finally 
succumbed  to  the  flow  of  the  current,  or,  if  pre¬ 
ferred,  the  propaganda.  Possibly  some  modest 
brother  suggested  the  idea,  and  it  became  common 
before  it  found  its  way  into  the  book  of  Discipline. 

The  title  was  not  found  in  the  earlier  records  of 
the  bishops,  where  the  body  was  referred  to  as 

142 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


“The  Bishops,”  and  the  rulings  of  the  body  were 
mentioned  as  “the  Bishops ’  Rulings,”  but,  more 
recently,  even  the  publications  of  “The  Bishops” 
use  the  title,  “the  Board  of  Bishops,”  and  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  the  common  use,  found  its  way  into  in¬ 
formal  and  then  formal  recognitions  in  publica¬ 
tions,  and  in  the  Discipline. 

In  a  sense,  it  is  practically  of  no  moment 
whether  the  parliamentary  idea  of  calling  the  con¬ 
gregated  bishops  ‘  4  The  House  of  Bishops,  ’  ’  or  the 
collective  or  associated  idea,  in  “The  College  of 
Bishops,”  or  some  other  title  be  used.  The  im¬ 
portant  thing  is  the  nature  and  relation  of  the 
body  itself,  and  it  is  what  it  has  been  from  the  be¬ 
ginning — a  distinct  and  vital  body  in  the  economy 
of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Calling  it  a 
“Board”  did  not  make  the  body  of  bishops.  There 
always  was  the  episcopal  body,  or  body  of  bishops 
and  the  use  of  the  title  “Board”  did  not  add  to  it 
any  power  or  any  privilege.  It  continued  to  be 
just  what  it  was  before  the  name  “Board”  came 
into  use.  It  was  the  same  thing  after  that  event 
as  it  had  been  before,  and  the  thing  is  more 
important  than  the  name. 

In  the  book  of  Discipline  there  are  a  number  of 
mentions  of  “The  Board  of  Bishops,”  but  they 
are  all  of  comparatively  recent  date,  but  the  his¬ 
tory  and  the  law  show  that  from  the  very  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  church  the  superintendents,  or  bishops, 
have  been  recognized  as  being  a  distinct  episcopal 
body,  and  just  as  much  so  as  they  have  been  since 
the  doubtful,  and  not  specially  dignified  word 

143 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


“Board”  has  been  attached,  with  its  subordinat¬ 
ing  idea  of  a  minor  gathering,  like  a  school  board, 
or  a  local  board  of  trustees,  and  with  its  etymo¬ 
logical  derivation  from  a  literal  board,  or  plank, 
out  of  which,  possibly,  might  be  made  a  table 
around  which  a  few  persons  might  sit. 

It  is  conceivable  that  a  more  appropriate  term 
might  be  applied  to  those  who  are  not  a  minor 
subdivision,  but  historically  and  legally,  a  distinct 
and  most  important  body  in  a  great  ecclesiasti- 
cism. 

However,  the  title  exists,  but  the  episcopal  body 
is  just  the  same  as  it  was  before  somebody  called 
it  a  Board. 

The  bishops  had  vast  and  various  responsibili¬ 
ties,  which  rested  on  the  single  bishop,  if  there  was 
only  one ;  and,  if  there  were  a  number  of  bishops, 
upon  them  all ;  and,  at  times,  it  was  necessary  for 
these  equals  to  agree  among  themselves  as  to  what 
should  be  done,  how  it  should  be  done,  and  by 
whom  it  should  be  done. 

When  there  were  only  two  bishops  they  con¬ 
ferred  together  and  arranged  details  of  their  work, 
and  when  their  numbers  increased  they  still  met 
from  time  to  time  to  confer  and  arrange  for  hold¬ 
ing  the  Conference  and  for  the  discharge  of  their 
various  duties,  and  what  these  were  did  not  depend 
upon  statute  law  or  ordinary  legislative  processes 
but  upon  the  Constitution  of  the  church  and  the 
established  usages,  or  common  law  of  the  episco¬ 
pacy. 

Of  this  body  each  minister,  when  he  was  made 

144 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


a  bishop,  became  a  member,  and  he  and  his  brother 
bishops  did  not  find,  nor  require,  a  program,  or 
order  of  business,  prepared  by  any  outside  party, 
but  acted  upon  and  according  to  the  duties  devolv¬ 
ing  upon  them,  and  the  rights  conferred  upon 
them,  by  the  nature  of  the  episcopacy,  as  in  4  ‘  The 
plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Superintendency,,,1 
and  under  the  protecting  provisions  of  the  written 
Constitution  adopted  by  the  church. 

In  1876,  Bishop  Matthew  Simpson,  in  his  Cyclo¬ 
pedia  of  Methodism ,2  said:  “The  duties  of  the 
bishops  are  to  preside  in  the  General  and  Annual 
Conferences,  and,  when  present,  in  the  District 
Conferences  also.  They  arrange  the  districts  for 
presiding  elders,  and  fix  the  various  appointments 
of  the  preachers.  They  are  further  required  to 
travel  through  the  church  at  large,  and  to  oversee 
the  spiritual  and  temporal  interests  of  the  church, 
to  consecrate  bishops,  and  ordain  elders  and  dea¬ 
cons,  and  to  decide  questions  of  law  arising  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Annual  Conferences;  such  de¬ 
cisions,  however,  being  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the 
ensuing  General  Conference,  but  in  all  cases  the 
application  of  law  is  with  the  Conference.  The 
bishops  are  also  directed  to  prescribe  a  course  of 
study  on  which  those  applying  for  admission  on 
trial  in  the  Annual  Conference  shall  be  examined, 
and  must  be  approved  before  admission,  and  also 
to  prescribe  a  course  of  study  and  of  reading 

"Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3. 

"Art.  “Bishops,”  p.  108;  Philadelphia,  1881,  Fourth  Revised 
Edition. 


145 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


proper  to  be  pursued  by  candidates  for  the  minis¬ 
try  for  the  term  of  four  years.  ’  ’ 

This  condensed  statement,  of  course,  needs  some 
modification  to  make  it  conform  to  present-day 
facts,  for  it  was  written  sixty-six  years  ago ;  but  it 
still  gives  a  fairly  comprehensive  idea  of  the 
duties  of  the  bishops. 

Nevertheless,  it  does  not  say  too  much,  for  such 
items  as  arranging  the  work,  distributing  the  as¬ 
signments  for  episcopal  visitation,  where  each 
bishop  is  the  equal  of  any  other  bishop,  and  fields 
have  their  own  peculiarities,  and  hearing  the  re¬ 
ports  from  the  bishops  who  have  recently  admin¬ 
istered  in  the  various  Conferences,  mean  a  mass 
of  details  that  may  fully  tax  the  best  brains  and 
the  most  sympathetic  hearts. 

In  addition  there  are  interpretations  of  law  and 
a  multitude  of  affairs  that  might  well  astonish 
even  the  most  intelligent  outsider.  Naturally,  all 
these  matters  require  meetings  for  information, 
study,  and  consultation,  and  as  the  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences  are  divided  into  the  Spring  and  Fall  Con¬ 
ferences,  so  that  they  may  be  held  in  those  seasons 
according  to  the  convenience  of  the  preachers  and 
people,  the  bishops  have  found  it  judicious  to  come 
together  at  those  seasons  after  the  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences  have  been  held.  These  gatherings  they 
call  their  semi-annual  Conferences,  the  Spring 
Conference  and  the  Fall  Conference.  In  their 
Spring  Conference  they  arrange  the  times  for  the 
meetings  of  the  next  Fall  Annual  Conferences, 
and  in  their  Fall  Conference  they  arrange  for  the 

146 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


next  Spring  Annual  Conferences.  The  dates  for 
the  Bishops  ’  Conferences  are  fixed  from  time  to 
time  by  the  bishops,  and  an  emergency  Conference 
of  bishops  may  be  called  at  any  time. 

It  may  be  asked,  Who  are  members  of  the  Board 
of  Bishops?  This  ought  not  to  be  difficult  to  an¬ 
swer,  and  that  in  a  few  words.  In  the  first  place, 
all  bishops  who  are  general  superintendents  are 
members  of  the  Board  of  Bishops,  and  the  names 
of  all  are  on  the  roll  and  are  duly  called  whether 
they  are  present  or  absent,  and  the  failure  to  be 
present  by  distance,  or  disease,  or  any  other 
cause  does  not  affect  the  bishop’s  membership  in 
the  Board. 

In  the  second  place,  missionary  bishops  who  are 
at  the  place  where  the  Board  meets  are  entitled  to 
be  present,  and,  when  their  fields  are  under  con¬ 
sideration,  they  are  entitled  to  represent  their 
foreign  mission  fields.  As  a  matter  of  practice 
they  always  are  most  welcome  and  have  accorded 
to  them  the  greatest  honor,  and  when  they  repre¬ 
sent  their  mission  field  they  are  granted  a  spe¬ 
cially  designated  and  unrestricted  time. 

Probably  some  of  the  emphasis  which  has  been 
put  on  “general”  in  “general  superintendent” 
was  placed  there  to  mark  the  distinction  between 
the  two  classes  of  bishops,  namely,  the  missionary 
bishops  and  the  bishops  who  were  general  super¬ 
intendents.  The  missionary  bishop  is  a  genuine 
bishop  with  full  episcopal  powers  for  his  assigned 
jurisdiction,  and,  hence,  is  referred  to  as  a  bishop 
limited  to  a  definite  mission  field  in  a  foreign 

147 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


country,  which  would  seem  to  be  a  limited  episco¬ 
pacy  only  in  a  qualified  sense,  when  it  is  recalled 
that  the  mission  may  be  a  continent  or  a  vast 
country  with  hundreds  of  millions  of  inhabitants. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  general  superintendent 
bishop  may  move  through  the  entire  United  States 
and  cannot  be  localized  in  any  particular  part,  but 
the  actual  territory  he  covers  may  be  only  a  frac¬ 
tion  as  large  as  the  jurisdiction  of  a  missionary 
bishop. 

A  question  of  very  considerable  importance  is 
as  to  where  the  Board  of  Bishops  should  meet. 
Can  it  meet  anywhere  or  everywhere  or  must  it 
meet  within  certain  limits  !  The  general  superin¬ 
tendents  are  bishops  of  an  American  church,  ‘  ‘  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America.”  Where,  then,  should  the  Board  of 
Bishops  meet  but  in  the  said  United  States  of 
America!  That  is  where  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  has  its  seat  of  authority,  and  as  the 
Board  of  Bishops  is  part  of  that  government,  that 
is  where  this  Board  should  convene.  Further, 
that  is  where  the  Board  of  Bishops  has  always 
met,  and  that*  established  usage  is  part  of  the  com¬ 
mon  law,  and  also  of  the  constitutional  law,  for  the 
usage  was  from  the  beginning,  and  before  the 
written  Constitution  and  was  a  part  of  “the  plan” 
of  our  episcopacy  before  “the  plan  of  our  itiner¬ 
ant  General  Superintendency”  was  inserted  into 
the  first  written  Constitution  of  1808,  and  re¬ 
adopted  in  the  new  Constitution  of  1900. 

On  the  same  principle  that  the  Constitution  re- 

148 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


quires  the  General  Conference  to  convene  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  the  Board  of  Bishops, 
as  a  part  of  the  central  church  government,  must 
have  sittings  in  the  United  States  and  cannot 
meet  outside  this  country.  In  addition  the  law  in 
regard  to  missionary  bishops  meeting  with  the 
Board  of  Bishops  clearly  shows  that  the  Board 
must  meet  “in  the  United  States.”1  The  Board 
of  Bishops  has  its  seat  in  the  United  States  of 
America  and  has  always  met  in  the  said  United 
States. 

All  general  superintendent  bishops  are  members 
of  the  Board,  and  though  absent  on  account  of 
distance  or  any  other  cause,  nevertheless  they 
remain  members  and  “any  missionary  bishop, 
who  may  be  in  the  United  States,”  as  the  law 
reads:  “When  the  General  Superintendents  are 
making  their  assignments  to  the  Conferences,  any 
Missionary  Bishop  who  may  be  in  the  United 
States  shall  sit  with  them  when  his  field  is  under 
consideration.”2  Incidentally  this  shows  that  the 
Board  of  Bishops  is  to  meet  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  has  authority  over  foreign  fields. 

The  church  center  has  always  been  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  The  natural  inference,  there¬ 
fore,  would  be  that  the  formal  and  official  meeting 
of  the  bishops  would  be  in  this  country.  With  this 
inference  the  facts  of  history  harmonize,  for  the 
authoritative  meetings  of  the  bishops,  in  the 
Board  of  Bishops,  have  always  been  held  in  the 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  H199,  p.  163. 

* Ibid . 

149 


t 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


United  States  of  America,  and  these  meetings  of 
the  Board  have  always  been  legally  recognized. 

The  Board  of  Bishops  is  a  central  body,  and 
naturally  belongs  to  the  center  of  the  church, 
which  is  within  the  United  States  of  America,  as 
its  proper  and  legal  place,  and  on  the  same  prin¬ 
ciple  that  the  General  Conference  is,  by  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  forbidden  to  convene  beyond  the  bound¬ 
aries  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  Board 
of  Bishops  should,  and  must,  comply  with  the  same 
restriction,  and  so  preserve  the  unity  of  the  epis¬ 
copacy.  The  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the 
Board  of  Bishops  have  been  outlined,  and  yet  it 
remains  to  be  said  that  the  Board  of  Bishops  has 
a  relation  to  the  foreign  mission  fields,  and  that 
this  implies  a  certain  degree  of  authority. 

The  law  already  quoted  which  says  :  “When  the 
General  Superintendents  are  making  their  as¬ 
signments  to  the  Conferences,  any  Missionary 
Bishop  who  may  be  in  the  United  States  shall 
sit  with  them  when  his  field  is  under  consideration, 
and  arrangements  shall  be  made  so  that  once  in 
every  quadrennium,  and  not  oftener  unless  a  seri¬ 
ous  emergency  arises,  every  Mission  over  which 
a  Missionary  Bishop  has  jurisdiction  shall  be  ad¬ 
ministered  conjointly  by  a  General  Superintendent 
and  the  Missionary  Bishop.  In  case  of  a  differ¬ 
ence  of  judgment  between  them  the  existing  status 
shall  continue  unless  overruled  by  the  General 
Superintendents  who  shall  have  power  to  decide 
finally. m 

'Discipline ,  1920,  *11199,  pp.  153,  154. 

150 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


This  refers  to  the  general  superintendents  sit¬ 
ting  in  the  Board  of  Bishops,  and  shows  they  had 
to  do  with  the  assignment  of  bishops  to  preside 
over  the  Annual  Conferences  in  missionary  juris¬ 
dictions,  as  in  what  is  termed  the  “Plan  of  Episco¬ 
pal  Visitation,”  that  this  Board  of  Bishops  has 
power  to  designate  a  general  superintendent  to 
visit  a  missionary  jurisdiction  and  administer  con¬ 
jointly,  and  that  also  the  Board  of  Bishops,  com¬ 
posed  of  general  superintendents,  “shall  have 
power  to  decide  finally.” 

Further  power  in  the  Board  of  Bishops  appears 
in  the  law  which  reads  as  follows:  “When  a 
Missionary  Bishop,  by  death  or  for  other  cause, 
ceases  to  perform  episcopal  duty  for  the  foreign 
field  to  which  he  was  assigned  by  the  General  Con¬ 
ference,  the  General  Superintendents  shall  at  once 
take  supervision  of  said  field.”1 

This  indicates  not  only  a  special  power,  but  also 
a  general  authority  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  in 
relation  to  foreign  missionary  jurisdictions.  If 
there  is  an  episcopal  vacancy  in  a  foreign  juris¬ 
diction  the  supervision  of  the  field  devolves  upon 
the  Board  of  Bishops  and  it  is  to  provide  for  the 
episcopal  oversight,  so  that  the  work  may  properly 
proceed. 

This  does  not  mean  that  any  individual  bishop 
shall  do  this  on  his  own  motion,  but  the  general 
superintendents  as  a  body,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
Board  of  Bishops,  shall  act,  and  act  according  to 
its  judgment  in  the  circumstances,  and  make 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  1f202,  p.  154. 

151 


1 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


needed  supervision.  Neither  does  it  mean  the 
putting  of  a  general  superintendent  in  foreign 
residence,  and  the  decision  is  not  to  be  made  by 
the  General  Conference,  but  by  the  Board  of 
Bishops.  In  the  emergency  the  Board  of  Bishops 
gives  the  field  special  oversight,  but  just  how  this 
body  must  determine. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  foreign  missions  have 
always  recognized  the  Board  of  Bishops  in  the 
United  States  as  the  only  legal  and  authoritative 
Board  of  Bishops,  and  bishops  in  foreign  fields 
have  looked  to  this  Board  of  Bishops  to  approve 
and  announce  the  episcopal  plan  for  their  Confer¬ 
ences.  This  is  done  in  the  semi-annual  publica¬ 
tion  of  the  assignments  by  the  Board,  and  the  law 
previously  cited  shows  this  is  both  law  and  usage.1 

Further,  the  bishops  in  foreign  fields  are  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  in  the  home  land, 
and  they  can,  and  actually  do,  sit  in  the  Confer¬ 
ences  of  the  Board  of  Bishops.  Three  were  pres¬ 
ent  in  the  session  last  June,  three  were  present 
six  months  before  that,  and  all  were  present  at 
and  immediately  after  the  late  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  1920,  and  always  they  are  most  cordially 
received  and  treated  with  the  greatest  honor,  and 
communications  from  the  bishops  in  foreign  lands 
are  frequently  received  and  always  are  wel¬ 
comed. 

So  the  relation  of  the  foreign  fields  to  the  Board 
of  Bishops  and  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  to  the 
foreign  mission  fields  has  always  been  understood 


'Discipline,  1920,  11199,  p.  153. 

152 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


and  duly  recognized  by  those  in  the  foreign  fields, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  submission  of  proposed  as¬ 
signments  for  Conference  presidencies,  and,  as 
the  law  previously  cited  shows,  it  is  part  of  the 
work  in  the  Board  of  Bishops  to  make  the  assign¬ 
ments  to  the  Conferences  including  those  for  for¬ 
eign  missions  (see  Discipline ,  1920,  1fl99,  p.  153). 
There  is,  however,  a  desire  to  consult  and  accom¬ 
modate. 

Now,  as  to  the  relation  of  the  bishops  in  the 
foreign  fields  to  the  Board  of  Bishops  in  the 
United  States  of  America  a  new  question  has  been 
suggested  and  the  suggestion  seems  to  have  come 
from  bishops  who  happen  to  be  in  certain  parts  of 
Asia,  and  it  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  fact 
that  a  large  number  of  general  superintendent 
bishops  have  been  assigned  by  the  recent  General 
Conference  to  foreign  jurisdictions.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  while  twenty-one  general  super¬ 
intendents  were  placed  in  the  United  States,  the 
General  Conference  of  1920  sent  seventeen  general 
superintendents  to  various  foreign  fields.  The 
mooted  question  is  while  there  is  a  Board  of 
Bishops  in  the  United  States,  may  there  not  be 
another  Board  of  Bishops,  or  other  Boards  of 
Bishops,  outside  the  United  States?  In  other 
words,  How  many  Boards  of  Bishops  can  there  be? 

The  indicating  of  the  large  number  of  general 
superintendents  in  foreign  fields,  and  the  pointing 
out  of  the  fact  that  the  number  was  nearly  equal 
to  the  number  in  the  United  States,  cannot  settle 
the  question,  for  the  right  of  the  Board  of  Bishops 

153 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


to  be  anywhere  rests  upon  law  and  legal  principles 
and  it  is  plain  that  the  Board  of  Bishops  that 
now  exists,  and  which  meets  in  the  United  States, 
has  a  legal  existence.  The  question,  therefore,  is 
not  to  be  determined  by  numbers,  whether  large  or 
small.  It  is  equally  plain  that  there  is  no  law  for 
the  formation  of  any  other  Board  of  Bishops  any¬ 
where.  Further,  it  is  clear  that  no  fractional 
group  of  bishops  anywhere  is  empowered  by  con¬ 
stitutional  law,  or  any  other  law,  to  declare  them¬ 
selves  to  be  a  Board  of  Bishops  of  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

These  principles  being  true,  no  number  of  gen¬ 
eral  superintendent  bishops  outside  the  United 
States  can  create  a  Board  of  Bishops,  at  their 
pleasure,  to  meet  outside  the  United  States,  and 
neither  could  groups  of  bishops  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries  establish  Boards  of  Bishops  in  and  for  for¬ 
eign  countries,  and  to  meet  in  said  foreign  lands, 
and  there  is  no  law  that  empowers  any  body  to 
create  such  boards  to  meet  anywhere.  The  church 
is  one,  and  there  is  only  one  Board  of  Bishops,  and 
that  exists  by  legal  and  constitutional  right,  and 
that  meets  in  the  United  States  of  America,  where 
the  central  authority  of  the  church  is  located. 
Even  if  other  Boards  of  Bishops  could  legally  be 
created,  there  are  many  practical  reasons  why  it 
should  not  be  done. 

One  may  call  attention  to  the  financial  objection 
and  show  that  for  the  general  superintendents  in 
foreign  fields  to  form  one  or  more  Boards  of  Bish¬ 
ops  to  meet  outside  the  United  States  would 

154 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


greatly  increase  the  cost  for  episcopal  administra¬ 
tion  and  increase  the  taxation  on  the  whole  church. 

Suppose  all  the  bishops  resident  outside  the 
United  States  were  to  claim  the  right  of  coming 
together  in  foreign  fields,  with  the  same  powers, 
rights,  and  privileges,  as  have  been  and  are  pos¬ 
sessed  by  what  has  long  and  legally  been  called  the 
Board  of  Bishops,  it  would  be  a  claim  never  be¬ 
fore  pressed,  or  advanced  by  such  bishops.  If  the 
bishops  in  the  foreign  missions  could  come  to¬ 
gether  in  a  foreign  country,  and  make  such  a  for¬ 
eign  Board  of  Bishops,  it  would  not  only  make  a 
division  among  the  bishops  of  the  church,  but 
would  make  what  would  practically,  and  actually, 
be  a  division  of  the  church  itself,  which  would  not 
end  merely  in  a  division  of  sentiment  and  prac¬ 
tice,  but  which  in  all  probability,  sooner  or  later, 
would  result  in  a  violent  rupture  in  relations,  and, 
finally,  in  a  separation. 

To  restate  in  detail,  if  the  bishops  in  foreign 
lands  did  constitute  one  or  more  Boards  of  Bish¬ 
ops  in  foreign  countries,  it  would  be  disastrous  in 
many  ways.  It  would  make  a  division  in  the  epis¬ 
copacy  ;  it  would  be  an  actual  separation  from  the 
general  superintendents,  and  the  general  superin- 
tendencv  in  the  United  States  of  America;  and  it 
would  be  formally  and  actually  antagonistic  to 
the  other  bishops,  and  would  probably  develop 
direct,  and  even  personal,  antagonisms  between 
the  bishops  of  the  foreign  fields  and  those  in  the 
Boards  of  Bishops  sitting  in  the  United  States. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Episcopacy  being 

155 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


a  unit,  the  Board  of  Bishops  must  meet  as  a  unity. 
To  have  Boards  of  Bishops  meeting  in  many  parts 
of  the  world  would  break  this  unity  and  lead  to 
diverse,  contradictory,  and  even  antagonistic  de¬ 
liverances  and  administration,  which  would  result 
in  confusion  and  injury  to  the  church.  Under  the 
law  it  seems  plain  that  with  the  Board  of  Bishops 
in  the  United  States  there  cannot  be  other  Boards 
of  Bishops,  with  similar  or  identical  powers  in 
foreign  countries.  The  bishops  abroad  have  no 
legal  authority  for  establishing  one  or  more 
Boards  of  Bishops  in  foreign  lands.  There  is  no 
authority  for  such  an  act  in  the  Constitution,  in 
the  statute  law,  or  in  established  usage,  and,  if 
general  superintendents  abroad  claim  that  be¬ 
cause  they  are  general  superintendents  they  have 
the  faintest  shadow  of  a  right  to  do  anything  of 
this  sort,  that  would  be  a  very  good  reason  for  not 
placing  general  superintendents  in  foreign  resi¬ 
dences.  The  proposition,  or  even  suggestion,  to 
have  one  or  more  Boards  of  Bishops  outside  the 
United  States  of  America  should  not,  and,  doubt¬ 
less,  will  not,  receive  the  approval  of  the  church. 
It  would  destroy  the  unity  of  the  episcopacy  and 
would  result  in  ecclesiastical  chaos.  For  such  a 
Board  to  -come  together  from  Asia,  Europe, 
Africa,  and  South  America  would  be  imprac¬ 
ticable,  and  certainly  would  be  no  easier,  than  for 
all  to  meet  in  the  Board  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

There  is,  however,  another  thing  that  can  be 
done,  and  which  may  meet  the  real  desire,  and 

156 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


which  may  be  cheerfully  conceded,  and  that  is  the 
meeting  of  bishops  in  given  foreign  mission  fields 
at  such  times  as  they  may  deem  proper.  In  for¬ 
eign  countries  bishops  need  to  consult  and  arrange 
their  work.  Immediate  and  future  needs  make 
it  desirable,  but  this  is  not  a  Board,  and  this  really 
is  no  new  thing  for  it  has  actually  been  done.  But 
even  such  a  meeting  should  have  its  limits,  for  if 
it  were  too  comprehensive  with  too  large  a  repre¬ 
sentative  character,  it  would  defeat  its  own  pur¬ 
pose.  Distance,  expense,  and  the  diverse  charac¬ 
ter  of  the  work  in  different  fields  would  forbid 
such  a  wide  and  miscellaneous  gathering.  Plainly, 
bishops  coming  together  from  different  continents 
would  not  be  advisable  to  what  should  be  a  local 
consideration,  while  its  impracticability  must  be 
apparent.  For  the  same  reasons  it  may  be  im¬ 
proper  to  attempt  such  a  meeting  for  a  large  for¬ 
eign  continent. 

Even  in  Asia,  where  there  are  more  bishops 
than  in  any  other  foreign  continent,  practical 
difficulties  are  many,  and  add  immensely  to  eco¬ 
nomic  and  other  objections,  and  there  the  various 
fields  are  too  widely  separated,  and  too  diverse  in 
their  composition,  government,  language,  and 
other  peculiarities  to  make  a  genuine  administra¬ 
tive  unity,  and  such  radical  differences  in  locality 
and  racial  peculiarities  would  seem  to  call  for  a 
number  of  local  gatherings  for  local  study  and 
local  concentration,  rather  than  for  a  large  meet¬ 
ing  for  a  general  and  miscellaneous  survey  and 
mixed  executive  action. 


157 


I 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

Then  there  are  certain  legal  conditions  that  must 
determine  what  should  and  can  be  done.  Thus 
these  foreign  countries  are  divided  by  General 
Conference  into  defined  foreign  missionary  juris¬ 
dictions,  and  to  each  jurisdiction  designated  bish¬ 
ops  are  assigned  and  in  which  they  are  to  labor. 
That  the  bishops  of  a  jurisdiction  may  come  to¬ 
gether  for  consultation  in  regard  to  their  field 
should  be  conceded,  but  there  is  no  law  for  assem¬ 
bling  other  and  remote  missionary  jurisdictions 
and  administering  conjointly  in  foreign  lands.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  there  is  no  field  called  “Asia,”  in 
the  legal  provisions  of  the  Discipline  of  the 
church,  under  which  all  general  superintendents 
resident  anywhere  in  that  continent  could  claim  to 
be  in  the  same  foreign  mission  field. 

The  legal  enactments  show  that  the  continent  of 
Asia  has  been  divided  into  a  number  of  fields  dis¬ 
tinctly  designated,  and  that  there  is  no  field  desig¬ 
nated  by  the  word  “Asia.”  The  General  Confer¬ 
ence  has  made  and  indicated  these  fields  by  definite 
titles. 

There  is  Eastern  Asia,  with  the  divisions  North 
China,  West  China,  Central  China,  Foochow, 
Hinghua,  and  Yenping  Conferences;  and  grouped 
with  these  is  what  is  styled  Japan-Korea.  These 
make  the  division  called  Eastern  Asia,  where  the 
late  General  Conference  assigned  four  bishops. 

A  second  group  is  called  Southern  Asia,  with 
the  South  India  Conference,  the  English-speaking 
Mission,  the  Bombay  Conference,  the  Central 
Provinces  Conferences,  the  Bengal  Conference, 

158 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

the  Burma  Conference,  the  North  India  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  the  Northwest  India  Conference.  To 
this  field  the  General  Conference  assigned  four 
bishops. 

Then  there  is  a  third  group  which  is  called 
Southeastern  Asia,  with  the  Philippine  Islands 
Conference,  the  Malaysia  Conference,  and  the 
Netherlands  India  Mission  Conference,  and  to  it 
two  bishops  were  assigned. 

The  General  Conference  has  made  these  three 
distinct  and  different  fields,  and,  while  bishops 
within  a  homogeneous  field  may  come  together  and 
confer,  there  seems  to  be  no  authority  for  creating 
a  Board  of  Bishops  containing  all  the  bishops  of 
the  diverse,  distinct,  and  distant  fields  of  Asia, 
and  attempting  to  divide  indiscriminately  the 
work  between  remote  bishops,  as,  for  example  be¬ 
tween  those  of  Korea  and  China  and  those  of 
India,  and  vice  versa.  Distance  and  diversity  of 
interests  forbid.  Consider  the  great  distances, 
the  vast  territories,  the  overwhelming  populations 
and  the  babel  of  tongues  in  these  immense  Asiatic 
fields.  Take  China  with  its  four  hundred  million 
inhabitants,  its  diverse  dialects  and  major  lan¬ 
guages,  its  background  of  a  very  ancient  civiliza¬ 
tion,  and  its  struggle  to  adapt  itself  to  new  con¬ 
ditions.  Take  India  with  her  three  hundred  mil¬ 
lions  of  miscellaneous  peoples  speaking  many 
tongues  with  the  memory  and  fact  of  long  ages  of 
art  and  learning,  her  history  covering  long  and 
marvelous  centuries,  and  now  a  new  restlessness 
which  may  betoken  a  new  birth  and  a  better  life 

159 


r 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


or  a  clash  and  crash  of  races  and  religions  which 
may  end  in  chaos. 

Consider  these  things  and  one  must  conclude 
that  the  bishops  of  Eastern  Asia  have  quite  enough 
to  do  if  they  master  the  situation  and  adequately 
perform  their  duty  in  Eastern  Asia,  without  at¬ 
tempting  to  take  on  the  problems  of  Southern 
Asia,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  bishops  of 
Southern  Asia  have  more  than  enough  to  do  in 
that  region  without  undertaking  to  direct  or  par¬ 
ticipate  in  the  operation  of  the  missions  in  Eastern 
Asia, 

Evidently,  there  is  no  need  for  the  bishops  in 
such  diverse  and  distant  fields  to  meet  together  to 
crowd  on  each  other  the  problems  which  belong  to 
fields  other  than  their  own.  Much  better  must  it 
be  that  they  take  the  time  and  energy  to  study 
and  operate  their  own  field. 

Then  as  to  the  matter  of  a  bishop  of  one  of  these 
great  fields  going  into  another  and  different  field 
to  temporarily  administer  the  work  therein,  work 
with  which  he  is  not  familiar,  and  leave  his  work 
in  his  own  foreign  mission  field  to  a  bishop  of 
some  other  mission  field,  it  does  not  prove  pru¬ 
dence,  wisdom,  or  economy  of  knowledge  and  ex¬ 
perience.  Further  fitness  in  one’s  own  foreign 
field  does  not  prove  preparation  for  or  adaptation 
to  another  and  almost  infinitely  different  field,  and 
repetitions  of  such  exchanges  in  administration 
must  work  to  the  detriment  of  both  fields. 

For  the  bishops  within  a  given  foreign  field  to 
meet  and  confer  about  the  details  of  the  work  in 

160 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

their  own  field  is  not  only  proper  but  highly  de¬ 
sirable,  because  it  is  one  field,  and  to  it  they  were 
assigned,  but  for  bishops  of  different  and  presum¬ 
ably  non-homogeneous  mission  fields  to  come  to¬ 
gether  as  a  Board  of  Bishops  or  anything  akin 
thereto,  is  something  that  is  not  meditated  by  the 
law  of  the  church,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  things, 
and  for  the  purposes  of  the  assignment  in  foreign 
countries,  should  not  be  attempted. 

The  letter  under  consideration  says  that  it 
emanates  from  “the  Bishops  resident  in  Asia,” 
and  it  is  perfectly  correct  that  the  bishops  indi¬ 
cated  do  reside  at  points  within  the  continent  of 
Asia,  but  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  do 
not  create  or  recognize  that  title,  they  do  not 
group  these  bishops  in  one  field,  and  nowhere  is 

there  a  field  which  is  called  “Asia.”  As  mav 

%/ 

easily  be  seen  the  General  Conference  did  mark 
out  three  distinct  fields :  First,  Eastern  Asia ; 
second,  Southern  Asia;  and  third,  Southeastern 
Asia.  This  is  not  hypercriticism,  or  any  kind  of 
criticism,  but  simply  a  statement  of  fact.  They 
all  were  not  put  into  one  combined  field,  but  three 
separate  fields  were  created,  manifestly  for  the 
purpose  of  having  them  kept  separate  and  of 
operating  them  separately,  and  there  is  no 
authorization  of  any  right  to  combine  the  three 
separate  fields  into  one  field,  or  into  one  episcopal 
missionary  jurisdiction.  The  facts  and  the  law  do 
not  sanction  the  idea  or  fact  of  a  combined  Asia, 
or  anything  like  a  Board  of  Bishops  made  up  of 
“Bishops  resident  in  Asia.” 

161 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Even  if  it  might  be  advisable  to  have  exchanges 
of  episcopal  administration  in  all  of  the  mission 
fields  in  Asia,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  exchange 
assignments  should  or  could  be  made  by  the 
bishops  resident  in  foreign  countries.  That  should 
be  done  by  a  centralized  authority  representing 
the  unity  of  the  whole  church,  as  episcopal  assign¬ 
ments  have  been  made  by  the  Board  of  Bishops  of 
the  church.  Suggestions  have  come  from  bishops 
in  foreign  mission  fields,  but  the  official  episcopal 
assignments  have  been  made  and  announced  by 
the  Board  of  Bishops. 

The  arrangement  among  the  bishops  of  one 
foreign  mission  field  is  one  thing;  but  an  arrange¬ 
ment  to  exchange  episcopal  jurisdiction  or  admin¬ 
istration  into  other  and  widely  separated  foreign 
mission  fields  is  a  very  different  thing,  and  to 
have  it  done  by  bishops  who  are  assigned  to  for¬ 
eign  fields,  for  themselves  and  by  themselves,  is 
contrary  to  the  genius  of  the  episcopal  system. 

The  right  for  bishops  in  foreign  mission  fields 
to  do  it  in  any  set  or  self-combination  of  foreign 
fields  would  carry  with  it  the  right  to  make  such 
exchange  adjustments  in  all  foreign  fields,  which 
would  mean  confusion  and  a  breaking  away  from 
the  established  constitutional  authority  of  the 
church  through  its  Board  of  Bishops.  If  a  group 
of  bishops  outside  the  United  States  of  America 
could  do  that  with  themselves,  it  would  tend  to 
episcopal  anarchy,  and  all  bishops  in  foreign 
countries  could  unite  and  send  themselves  for  ex¬ 
change  administration  from  one  continent  to 

162 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


another,  from  Asia  to  Africa,  and  Africa  to  Asia, 
and  from  South  and  Central  America  to  Europe, 
and  from  Europe  to  any  other  continent,  or  in  any 
order  or  direction  they  pleased.  A  blind  man  can 
see  that  the  tendency  would  be  to  a  hasty  and  vio¬ 
lent  disruption  of  the  church,  a  separation  into 
fragments  and  probably  a  generally  chaotic  condi¬ 
tion.  All  of  which  proves  the  wisdom  and  neces¬ 
sity  of  the  Board  of  Bishops  at  the  center  of  the 
church. 

In  all  this  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  while  the 
United  States  is  one  great  field,  the  foreign  coun¬ 
tries  have  been  divided  into  a  number  of  mission¬ 
ary  fields,  and  that  there  is  a  different  status  in 
the  foreign  fields  and  the  home  church.  Further, 
as  far  as  these  principles  are  concerned,  it  makes 
no  difference  whether  those  who  take  part  in  the 
actions  are  general  superintendent  bishops  or  any 
other  kind  of  bishops.  Laws  and  principles  are  to 
determine  and  not  the  episcopal  title. 

The  bishops,  or  general  superintendents  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  duly  elected  by 
the  General  Conference  and  solemnly  consecrated 
before  the  church  and  Almighty  God,  and  passing 
into  the  body  of  the  bishops  they  become  members 
of  what  is  termed  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

This  Board  contains  the  chief  executives  of  the 
church,  the  bishops,  who,  in  association  are  organ¬ 
ized  and  oversee  the  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs 
of  the  church,  interpret  the  laws  of  the  church 
for  each  quadrennium,  and  inspire  the  church  in 
its  various  departments. 

163 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


For  their  existence  as  a  body,  or  Board,  they 
are  not  indebted  to  any  power  less  than  the  whole 
church,  but  become  a  body,  or  Board  of  Bishops, 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  bishops,  and  as  such  they 
stand  out  as  one  of  the  great  bodies  in  the  Consti¬ 
tutional  economy  of  the  denomination,  with  pow¬ 
ers  and  privileges,  as  well  as  responsibilities,  that 
no  other  single  body  in  the  church  can  affect  or 
change. 

To  recapitulate  we  may  say:  First,  what  is 
technically,  and  legally  known  as  “The  Board  of 
Bishops,’ ’  has  under  some  well-understood  title, 
existed  from  the  beginning  of  the  church.  Second, 
the  Board  of  Bishops  has  its  center  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  where  its  meetings  are  held, 
and  always  have  been  held.  Third,  as  the  church 
is  a  unit,  there  is  only  one  Board  of  Bishops. 
Fourth,  no  other  Board  of  Bishops  can  be  estab¬ 
lished  anywhere  else,  either  in  the  United  States, 
or  in  the  foreign  fields.  Fifth,  bishops  in  foreign 
missions  may  meet  for  consultation  in  regard  to 
the  details  of  their  own  immediate  fields.  Sixth, 
since  the  General  Conference  has  marked  out  cer¬ 
tain  fields  in  foreign  countries,  and  since  particu¬ 
lar  bishops  have  been  assigned  to  these  definite 
fields,  the  meetings  of  bishops  in  the  foreign  work 
should  be  made  up  of  the  bishops  in  the  particular 
field,  within  the  bounds  of  the  Central  Mission 
Conference  to  which  the  particular  bishops  be¬ 
long,  and  there  is  no  law  permitting  Episcopal 
gatherings  or  exchanges  beyond  these  defined  for¬ 
eign  fields. 


164 


CHAPTER  VIII 


PRESENT  CONSIDERATIONS 


CHAPTER  VIII 


PRESENT  CONSIDERATIONS 

The  present  we  can  see  and  know.  The  future 
we  may  not  certainly  know,  but,  with  the  facts  of 
the  past  and  the  present,  we  may  forecast  the 
future.  Through  our  knowledge  of  cause  and 
effect,  with  the  law  of  sequence  and  probability 
before  us,  we  may  fairly  perceive  the  possibilities 
beyond  the  present,  and  determine  and  provide 
for  the  future. 

These  laws  work  out  in  individual  affairs,  in 
business,  in  the  community  and  the  nation,  and 
apply  equally  well  to  the  church  generally,  and 
to  its  various  projects,  including  its  missions  in 
foreign  countries,  among  other  races  and  among 
people  of  other  political  ideas  and  other  civiliza¬ 
tions. 

The  church  in  the  home  land  has  its  purposes 
in  the  interest  of  foreign  missions,  and  it  has  its 
machinery  for  carrying  out  these  projects,  at  the 
same  time  the  foreign  mission  has  its  mechanism 
and  workers  endeavoring  to  realize  the  hopes  of 
the  home  church. 

Much  has  been  accomplished,  but  the  home 
church  peers  into  the  future  and  wonders  what  the 
future  will  be.  It  takes  an  account  of  stock  and 
tries  to  strike  a  balance.  It  asks,  What  more  can 

167 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


be  done,  how  can  it  be  done,  and  how  may  the 
burden  be  lightened  in  one  field  so  that  greater 
effort  may  be  turned  into  some  other  field!  Then 
the  difficulties  and  uncertainties  spring  up  and  a 
smoke  screen  seems  to  hide  the  future. 

We  have  gone  so  far  and  we  aim  to  go  further. 
When,  and  how  far,  we  shall  go,  in  a  degree,  de¬ 
pends  on  ourselves  and  circumstances. 

So  to  speak,  a  great,  dense,  and  dark  forest  is 
before  us.  It  must  be  penetrated,  charted,  and 
opened  up  to  the  light.  If  we  are  to  go  through, 
we  need  a  path.  If  there  is  no  path,  then  one 
must  be  made.  If  there  is  no  path,  then  we  need  a 
compass,  and,  even  if  there  is  a  path,  we  should 
have  a  compass  to  tell  us  the  direction  and  to  en¬ 
able  us  to  determine  whither  the  path  leads.  There 
must  be  something  on  which  we  can  depend,  at 
least  with  some  degree  of  certainty. 

When  we  have  no  definite  knowledge  we  must 
have  a  principle  which  may  guide  us,  even  if  it  is 
only  like  the  ray  of  light  from  the  little  lantern, 
which  reveals  step  by  step,  one  step  at  a  time,  but 
which  at  last  leads  to  our  destination. 

We  have  the  church  and  we  have  the  foreign 
mission  field,  and  in  the  dark  there  is  much  beyond, 
but  we  are  not  helpless.  We  have  had  the  past, 
its  memory  still  is  with  us,  and  something  has  been 
learned.  With  the  past  and  the  present  right 
principles  may  be  found  and  they  may  be  our 
guides. 

We  must  not  forget  the  past,  and  we  must  learn 
and  know  present  facts.  Then,  with  reliable  prin- 

168 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ciples,  we  may  penetrate  difficulties  and  mold  and 
control  the  future. 

In  them  we  may  find  a  right  historical,  legal, 
and  constitutional  basis,  and  in  them  we  may  find 
the  reliable  compass  to  point  out  the  right  direc¬ 
tion  in  which  we  should  go.  That  is  safer  than  to 
follow  sudden  impulses  and  wild  suggestions. 

Experience  is  a  dear  teacher,  it  is  said,  but  it  is 
a  teacher,  though  a  costly  one,  and  those  who  have 
paid  the  price  may  have  learned.  So  the  church 
has  had  some  experience  in  foreign  missions  and 
should  have  learned  something.  From  that  the 
church  may  profit  in  the  future. 

Even  failures  may  carry  most  valuable  lessons, 
and  one  is  against  a  poorly  informed,  rash,  and 
dangerous  leadership.  One  of  these  lessons  is  not 
to  tear  up  every  old  thing  to  make  way  for  every 
new  and  untried  thing,  but  to  “  prove  all  things 
and  hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good.” 

In  the  matter  of  foreign  missions,  under  the  lead 
of  a  few,  or  the  lack  of  leadership  in  the  many, 
the  church  now  and  then  has  wandered  from  the 
right  path,  and  strayed  into  the  maze  of  the  jungle 
and  wasted  energy  and  precious  time.  Even  Gen¬ 
eral  Conferences  have  been  misguided,  and  have 
gone  astray,  but  though  the  penalty  was  great,  for 
it  meant  cost  and  loss,  nevertheless  there  may 
have  been  ultimate  profit  from  the  severe  ex¬ 
perience. 

Here  is  where  wisdom  must  come  into  action. 
The  time  of  mistake  and  disaster  is  not  the  time 
for  unthinking  excitement,  but  for  calmness  and 

,  169 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


intense  thought,  for  the  church  will  not  recover 
herself  and  regain  what  has  been  lost  by  wildly 
rushing  into  the  thickets  of  bad  advice. 

What  is  needed  is  not  to  go  on  plunging  into 
darker  tangles  and  calling  it  progress.  The  thing 
to  do  is  first  to  get  back  to  the  right  path  by  mov¬ 
ing  in  the  right  direction,  and  then,  when  it  has 
found  its  bearings  and  is  once  more  on  the  right 
path,  the  church  may  push  forward  on  a  genuine 
advance. 

Sometimes  thinking  is  better  than  action,  espe¬ 
cially  when  the  action  is  aimless  movement  in  a 
circle,  and  sometimes  the  best  thing  to  do  is  not 
to  press  forward,  but  to  go  back  and  get  on  the 
right  path,  which  may  mean  the  throwing  away  of 
the  new  entangling  notion  and  taking  up  an  old 
method  which  had  been  discarded — the  old  thing 
which  had  proved  itself  to  be  good. 

The  church  to-day  is  where  it  needs  calm  con¬ 
sideration  as  to  what  is  best  to  be  done.  This  is 
not  the  time  so  much  for  excessive  enthusiasm, 
but  to  have  a  clear  head  and  a  clear  eye,  to  reason 
and  to  perceive.  Enthusiasm  is  always  needed 
but  headless  excitement  does  not  bring  enduring 
success.  Think-fests  may  be  more  needed  than 
talk-fests,  and  thinking  must  precede  action.  The 
church  should  seek  and  reexamine  certain  funda¬ 
mental  facts  in  regard  to  itself  and  some  of  its 
activities.  One  primary  fact  it  should  fix  is  the 
right  relation  of  the  church  to  its  foreign  missions, 
and  then  the  right  relation  of  these  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  to  the  church.  The  church  is  the  chief  thing, 

170 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

and  the  independent  entity,  while  the  foreign  is  a 
form  of  its  activity. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Chnrch  in  the  United 
States  of  America  existed  before  it  had  any  for¬ 
eign  mission.  In  a  sense  this  church  was  a  com¬ 
plete  church  when  the  United  States  was  its  only 
field,  and  it  could  have  gone  on  doing  a  good  and 
great  work,  if  it  had  continued  to  occupy  and 
labor  in  no  other  territory. 

Then  came  the  expanding  view,  and  the  venture 
into  parts  of  the  world  beyond  the  boundaries  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  planting  in 
one  and  more  places  of  the  seeds  of  Christian 
truth  and  its  cultivation  in  these  new  gardens  of 
the  Lord.  Then  the  church  increasingly  gave  her 
men  and  means  to  carry  the  gospel  and  to  induce 
the  inhabitants  of  foreign  land  to  accept  and  live 
in  conformity  with  Christ’s  truth,  and  the  church 
continued  to  care  for  and  develop  the  new  converts 
to  Christianity.  So  the  church  had  taken  upon 
itself  the  oversight  of  foreign  missions,  but  the 
church  never  lost  its  entity  and  that  entity  con¬ 
tinued  to  exist  independently  of  its  missions  in 
foreign  lands. 

The  church  was  first,  and  later  followed  the 
mission  beyond  the  territory  of  the  home  church. 
Without  the  home  church  these  particular  foreign 
missions  would  not  have  been  started,  and  with¬ 
out  the  church  these  foreign  missions  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  could  not  have  been  sustained ;  and  now, 
as  these  foreign  missions  are  fostered  by  the  home 
church,  the  most  important  thing  to  these  foreign 

'  171 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


missions  is  the  home  church,  but  it  remains  plain 
that  the  home  church  is  one  thing,  and  the  foreign 
mission  is  another  thing,  though  they  work  to¬ 
gether.  Hence,  there  are  two  fundamental  facts 
to  be  considered:  first,  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and, 
second,  the  relations  between  the  mother  church 
and  the  dependent  foreign  missions ;  and  these  re¬ 
lations  imply  the  duty  of  the  church  to  the  foreign 
missions,  and  the  duty  of  these  missions  to  the 
mother  church. 

It  is  necessary  to  keep  in  view  the  constant  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  home  church  and  its  foreign 
mission.  The  one  is  the  creator;  the  other  is  the 
created  institution,  so  they  are  not  exactly  the 
same.  The  church  was  an  independent  entity.  It 
existed  as  such  before  it  had  any  mission  in  a  for¬ 
eign  country,  and  it  could  thus  exist  if  again  it 
had  no  foreign  mission  now  or  in  the  future. 

Churches,  or  denominations,  have  existed  with¬ 
out  foreign  missions,  and  yet  were  properly  re¬ 
garded  as  true  churches.  It  may  be  said  that  to¬ 
day  a  church  would  not  be  doing  its  full  duty  if  it 
did  not  support  foreign  missions.  That  may  not 
be  disputed,  but  that  is  not  the  point  now  under 
discussion.  We  are  not  saying  that  the  church  in 
a  Christian  land  would  be  meeting  its  full  obliga¬ 
tion,  if  it  had  no  foreign  mission ;  but  it  might  be 
claimed  that  a  church  would  have  a  right  to  de¬ 
cide  for  itself  what  form  of  support  of  foreign 
missions  it  would  give ;  for  example,  as  to  whether 
it  would  control  and  carry  on  a  foreign  mission, 

172 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


or  whether,  instead  of  controlling  an  organiza¬ 
tion  called  its  own,  it  would  give  its  money  to  for¬ 
eign  missions  carried  on  by  other  bodies  or  indi¬ 
viduals. 

We  are  not  advocating  the  latter  form  of  mis¬ 
sionary  support,  but  merely  showing  an  alterna¬ 
tive  method,  and  a  method  which  has  been  pursued 
by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  example, 
as  it  contributed  to  the  support  of  Wesleyan  mis¬ 
sions  in  France  when  it  had  no  work  of  its  own  in 
that  country,  and  now,  as  it  does  by  its  gifts  to, 
and  through,  the  Independent  Church  of  Japan. 
Of  course,  in  such  cases,  it  cannot  exercise  organic 
control.  So  there  are  recognized  alternatives,  and 
the  method  to  be  used  may  be  a  matter  of  judg¬ 
ment  and  of  circumstances. 

Returning  to  the  thought  started  above.  The 
home  church  was  an  entity  before  it  had  any  for¬ 
eign  mission,  it  continued  to  preserve  its  entity 
after  it  had  foreign  missions,  and  its  original  en¬ 
tity  would  continue  to  exist  if  it  ceased  to  have 
any  foreign  mission. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  a  mission 
in  Canada,  and,  when  that  mission  became  inde¬ 
pendent,  still  the  entity  of  the  original  church  con¬ 
tinued;  and  once  it  had  a  mission  in  Japan,  but 
when  the  Japanese  work  became  independent,  the 
entity  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  not 
affected  in  any  particular.  So  if  all  concluded 
that  they  would  be  better  and  do  better  if  inde¬ 
pendent,  and  withdrew  from  its  direct  relation¬ 
ship  to  the  mother  church,  The  Methodist  Episco- 

173 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


pal  Church  would  continue  to  be  the  same  entity 
it  was  when  it  was  organized  as  a  church  in  the 
United  States. 

The  chief  point  is,  first,  that  there  is  a  home 
church,  and  this  is  the  most  vital  thing;  second, 
that  this  now  called  home  church  is  as  complete 
an  ecclesiastical  entity  as  it  ever  was ;  third,  that 
this  entity  of  the  home  church  can  exist  with,  or 
without  foreign  missions ;  and,  fourth,  that  this 
church  entity  must  be  maintained  in  its  independ¬ 
ence  both  for  itself  and  the  work  it  may  do  for 
others. 

If  it  should  chance  that  in  any  way  this  inde¬ 
pendence  were  destroyed,  say  by  the  intervention 
of  individual  or  massed  power,  for  example,  from 
without  the  United  States  of  America,  it  would  be 
the  practical  and  actual  overthrow  of  The  Metho¬ 
dist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  a  possibility  never  intended  or  dreamed 
of  by  the  founders  of  the  church.  If  ever  that  in¬ 
dependent  entity  is  lost,  through  outside  or  inside 
force,  or  in  any  way,  that  would  mean  the  destruc¬ 
tion  or  loss  of  the  original  church,  and  the  church 
owes  it  to  itself,  and  for  the  good  of  the  world  to 
protect  itself  from  such  dangers,  no  matter  in 
what  form  they  may  appear. 

The  danger  may  exist  in  many  forms,  and  the 
approach  is  likely  to  be  insidious  and  unsuspected, 
and  the  injury  may  be  done  before  the  impending 
danger  is  perceived,  and,  that  being  the  case,  it 
behooves  every  one  in  the  church  to  be  on  guard, 
and  alert  to  defend  against  surprise,  and  the 

174 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

greatest  dangers  are  sometimes  in  little  things 
which  seem  to  be  innocent  and  for  which  the  best 
motives  may  be  claimed. 

Not  only  must  the  independence  of  the  home 
church  be  preserved,  but  also  the  home  church  in 
the  United  States  must  be  maintained  in  strength. 
This  appears  particularly  in  its  relation  to  the 
support  of  foreign  missions,  for  if  the  home 
church  became  impoverished,  the  gifts  contributed 
for  missions  in  foreign  lands  would  inevitably  be 
diminished.  The  depleting  of  the  home  church, 
if  that  were  possible,  might  be  fatal  to  many  mis¬ 
sions  abroad.  We  say  “if  possible,”  but  we  can 
imagine  a  depleted  church,  and  we  need  only  think 
of  countries  now  suffering  from  a  long-continued 
and  exhausting  war,  to  see  that  the  possibility  is 
not  a  mere  imagination,  and  there  may  be  other 
causes  besides  war. 

Then  a  depleted  home  church  would  not  be  able 
to  do  its  own  work  well  at  home.  There  is  where 
the  home  church  must  be  most  vigorous.  There 
the  life  forces  must  be  at  their  best  and  all  forms 
of  church  activity  must  be  carried  on  with  power 
and  ease.  The  individual  must  have  a  healthy 
heart,  and  it  must  work  normally  and  well,  if  the 
man  is  to  do  his  full  part,  and  no  matter  what  he 
may  be  in  other  respects  a  weak  and  diseased 
heart  is  a  most  serious  handicap.  So  the  outside 
activities  of  the  church  require  that  its  heart  in  the 
home  church  shall  always  be  kept  at  its  best. 

Various  things  within  the  home  church  might 
affect  it,  as  might  circumstances  in  the  home 

175 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


country ;  and  even  the  management  of  home 
affairs  might  enervate  and  exhaust,  and,  there¬ 
fore,  managers  must  consider  the  capabilities  of 
local  churches,  so  that  burdens  will  not  be  too 
heavy,  the  true  perspective  will  be  preserved,  and 
the  various  activities  will  be  properly  balanced. 

Demands  on  the  people  for  money,  and  even 
for  service  must  be  governed  by  as  perfect  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  churches  as  can  be  obtained.  It  may  be 
said  that  the  church  does  not  give  too  much  or  do 
too  much,  or,  as  some  put  it,  the  church  does  not 
do  enough  or  give  enough.  That  is  not  worth  an 
argument,  but  the  generalization  may  be  pressed 
too  far  and  injustice  may  be  done  individuals  here 
and  there,  and  the  injustice  may  work  injury  to 
many  persons  and  result  in  irreparable  damage 
to  the  church. 

Even  in  the  matter  of  apportionments  of  money 
to  be  raised  and  appeals  for  liberal  giving,  the 
best  of  judgment  necessary.  The  amount  must 
be  within  reasonable  limits  and  the  contributions 
of  the  individual  and  the  church  must  be  free  gifts 
freely  given. 

Everything  like  coercion  should  be  avoided.  Not 
merely  coercion,  but  anything  like  coercion,  has 
no  place  in  an  American  Protestant  church,  that 
is  to  say,  no  righteous  place.  Circumstances  from 
without  the  church  have  brought  imitations 
within  the  church,  and  it  may  take  a  long  time  for 
the  churches  to  get  over  the  evil  effects  of  their 
introduction. 

The  government  may  tax,  but  that  ought  not  to 

176 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


be  the  churchly  method.  Yet  people  in  the  church 
speak  of  a  tax  placed  upon  them.  This  may  need 
qualification,  but  the  feeling  may  be  the  same, 
though  they  may  modify  and  say  it  is  like  a  tax. 
If  it  were  possible  to  tax  a  church  so  that  the  mem¬ 
bers  had  to  pay  an  excessive,  or  over  tax,  by  over¬ 
persuasion  or  constraint  of  any  kind,  it  may  easily 
be  seen  that  the  church  might  be  financially  weak¬ 
ened  and  exhausted,  and  it  might  require  a  long 
time  for  the  church  to  readjust  and  recover  from 
the  reaction. 

In  missionary  and  other  benevolent  appeals, 
the  best  judgment  and  the  warmest  Christian 
charity  must  be  used,  and  it  must  be  remembered 
that  no  amount  of  money,  no  matter  how  large — * 
even  millions  or  billions  of  dollars — will  instan¬ 
taneously  convert  all  the  heathen  world.  The 
movement  must  be  gradual,  though  it  may  be 
relatively  rapid. 

The  cause  must  be  presented  and  the  best  results 
secured,  but  the  church  must  not  oppress,  or  use 
any  form  of  duress  to  compel  the  giving  or  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  freedom  of  the  giver.  Not  compulsion 
but  free  giving  is  the  ideal. 

There  should  be  a  most  careful  study  of  present 
facts  and  conditions  in  the  foreign  missions,  that 
the  church  may  ascertain  what  should  be  done  for 
the  church  and  these  missions  now  and  in  the  near 
future,  and  the  study  should  bring  to  light  what  is 
being,  and  what  is  to  be,  proposed. 

One  remarkable  suggestion  is  a  proposition  that 
all  the  connectional  boards  of  the  church  should 

177 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


extend  their  operations  directly  into  the  foreign 
mission  fields. 

Of  course  it  is  well  understood  that  the  Board 
of  Foreign  Missions  and  the  Woman’s  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  have  in  all  the  years  of  their 
existence  been  operating  in  the  foreign  fields,  so 
the  proposition  must  refer  to  the  other  boards. 

Certain  bishops  in  Asia  have  expressed  the 
“conviction  that  the  time  has  come  to  expand  the 
activities  of  all  the  connectional  boards  to  the 
whole  church.’ ’ 

This  looks  like  a  fair  proposition,  and  in  the 
line  of  progress.  That  these  bishops  in  their  dis¬ 
tant  continent  present  the  suggestion  may  be  re¬ 
garded  as  a  fact  in  its  favor,  while  others  may 
have  a  question  against  it  because  nearly  all  the 
bishops  are  young  and  earnest,  and  had  been  only 
a  very  short  time  on  their  fields.  However,  what¬ 
ever  may  be  thought  of  it  at  first  sight,  it  should 
be  carefully  considered.  Objection  has  already 
been  entered,  which  shows  that  consideration  has 
already  begun. 

The  editor  of  the  Pacific  Christian  Advocate,  re¬ 
ferring  to  the  suggestion  of  “the  Asian  Bishops 
at  Singapore,”  says,  in  the  issue  for  August  9, 
1922: 

“They  made  a  plea  for  the  world  extension  of 
practically  all  the  benevolent  boards.  Surely,  they 
could  not  have  given  the  matter  due  reflection; 
it  would  be  dreadful  to  carry  over  into  every 
mission  field  the  duplication  of  boards  to  be  found 
in  this  country  and  to  have  a  multitude  of  secre- 

178 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


taries  crossing  and  recrossing  the  seven  seas  on 
tours  of  inspection.  .  .  .  This  must  never  be. 

.  .  .  One  American  agency  plus  the  bishop  is 
all  that  non-American  Methodists  ought  to  be 
compelled  to  deal  with.  ’ n 

On  the  other  hand,  those  bishops  take  a  differ¬ 
ent  point  of  view  “In  view  of  the  rapid  develop¬ 
ment  of  our  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  a 
world-wide  organization,  with  large  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences,  educational  institutions,  vast  property 
interests,  and  a  growing  consciousness  of  interna¬ 
tional  solidarity,”* 2  they  think  all  the  connectional 
Boards  should  act  in  the  foreign  fields  just  as  they 
do  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

Most  people  reading  the  words  quoted  above 
would  find  a  rush  of  questions  rising  in  their 
minds  and  would  want  to  know  just  what  the  sev¬ 
eral  statements  mean. 

For  example,  just  what  is  meant  by  that  ‘ 4  inter¬ 
national  solidarity, ’  ’  and  what  has  it  to  do  with 
the  church  boards  that  act  within  the  church  in 
the  United  States?  Of  course  the  statement  is 
that  ‘ ‘ international  solidarity”  is  an  existing  fact. 
If  so  there  cannot  be  a  consciousness  of  it.  But  is 
“international  solidarity”  an  actual  fact  and  is 
our  nation  in  it?  Our  nation  has  not  voted  that 
way.  That  was  not  Washington’s  teaching,  and 
President  Wilson  said:  “North  America  should 
live  her  own  life.  Washington  saw  it  when  he 
wrote  his  Farewell  Address,”  and  “It  was  not 

Ussue  of  August  9,  1922,  p.  10. 

2Printed  Communication,  1922,  p.  13. 

179 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


merely  because  of  passing  and  transient  circum¬ 
stances  that  Washington  said  we  must  keep  from 
entangling  alliances.”1 

The  wars  since  the  Great  War  show  that  there 
is  little  or  no  “international  solidarity”  in  Europe 
and  the  repeated  failures  in  the  conferences  of 
European  diplomats  in  Genoa,  The  Hague,  and  in 
London,  give  evidence  of  the  lack  of  “international 
solidarity.”  The  United  States  helps  the  nations, 
even  including  its  former  enemies,  but  it  has  not 
cemented  any  political  solidarity,  and  nations 
tremble  through  fear  of  a  break  between  Great 
Britain  and  France.  The  present  “solidarity” 
among  the  nations  is  rather  weak  to  make  what  is 
not  a  fact  the  basis  of  an  argument  for  command¬ 
ing  the  “  connectional  Boards”  in  the  United 
States  to  change  their  legal  nature  and  elongate 
their  activities  so  as  to  directly  reach  the  foreign 
mission  fields. 

What  the  “large  Annual  Conferences”  in  the 
United  States  have  to  do  with  the  question  is  some¬ 
what  mysterious,  for  there  is  nothing  glorious  in 
combining  two  or  more  fair-sized  Annual  Confer¬ 
ences  into  a  huge  body  that  cannot  be  accommo¬ 
dated  in  an  ordinary  church  building.  It  has  lost 
history  and  historic  association,  and  some  say 
even  brotherhood,  and  gained  only  bulk.  Gener¬ 
ally,  it  was  a  bad  thing  to  do.  But  what  reason 
does  it  make  for  changing  a  United  States  Board 
and  sending  it  into  foreign  parts? 

mishop  Thomas  B.  Neely’s  The  League,  the  Nation*s  Danger , 
Philadelphia,  1919,  p.  111. 


180 


-AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


The  reference  to  “educational  institutions  and 
vast  property  interests’’  is  also  rather  bewilder¬ 
ing.  These  vast  interests  are  generally  in  the 
United  States,  and  they  might  form  an  argument 
for  keeping  the  United  States  Boards  at  work  in 
the  United  States,  and  we  see  no  intimation  that 
the  properties  in  the  foreign  missions  are  not 
properly  and  securely  held,  and  there  is  no  state¬ 
ment  to  the  effect  that  these  United  States  Con- 
nectional  Boards  are  needed  to  securely  hold  the 
church  properties  in  foreign  lands. 

The  only  other  point  left  is  ‘  ‘  the  rapid  develop¬ 
ment  of  our  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  a 
world-wide  organization.”  This  needs  explana¬ 
tion  and  study.  If  this,  however,  is  going  on  at 
such  a  rate,  while  the  United  States  Boards  are 
still  in  the  United  States,  it  would  seem  that  there 
is  no  necessity  for  sending  them  abroad  to  accel¬ 
erate  the  speed. 

But  has  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  be¬ 
come  “a  world-wide  organization,”  and,  if  so, 
what  are  the  proofs  of  this  “rapid  development”! 
What  is  “a  world-wide  organization,”  when  did 
it  begin,  and  what  will  it  end  in!  Is  it  any  more 
of  a  world-organization  than  it  was,  say  about 
fifty-five  years  ago,  for  example,  in  1868! 

The  first  weakness  in  the  notion  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  being  “a  wo  rid- wide  organi¬ 
zation”  is  in  the  simple  fact  that  it  is  not  “a 
wo  rid- wide  organization”  at  all.  It  does  not  gov¬ 
ern  the  whole  world  and  it  does  not  cover  all  the 
world.  It  never  was  intended  to  be  a  world-gov- 

181 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ernment  actually  governing  the  wide  world,  and 
it  is  not  such  a  government.  From  its  center  it  is 
not  the  imperial  ruler  of  the  ecclesiastical  world 
and  everywhere,  and  it  is  not  a  combination  of  the 
world  that  rules  the  world  everywhere  and  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  its  center. 

"When  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  no 
foreign  missions  it  was  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America.  Then 
the  only  territory  it  touched  was  the  United  States 
and  it  was  plainly  the  church  in  and  of  the  United 
States.  But  when  it  undertook  to  send  the  gospel 
to  Liberia  it  did  not  cease  to  be  the  church  in  the 
United  States.  Neither  did  it  when  it  began  send¬ 
ing  the  gospel  to  South  America ;  and  neither  did 
it  when  it  sent  the  gospel  to  China. 

It  merely  became  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  with  mis¬ 
sions  in  foreign  parts,  and  the  church  in  the  United 
States  was  one  thing  and  the  mission  outside  the 
United  States  was  another.  The  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  two,  the  home  church  and  the  mission, 
was  manifest  and  was  clearly  understood  both  by 
the  church  and  by  the  mission. 

The  foreign  mission  did  not  govern  the  church 
in  the  United  States,  but  the  church  in  the  United 
States  governed  the  foreign  mission,  but  because 
it  sent  the  gospel  to  Liberia  it  did  not  become  “a 
world-wide  organization.  ’ ’  Neither  did  it  when  it 
sent  the  gospel  to  South  America,  neither  did  it 
when  it  sent  the  gospel  to  China,  and  neither  has 
it  since  it  has  added  a  few  more  places ;  and  now 

182 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


that  it  is  in  spots  and  points  of  influence  here  and 
there,  it  is  not “world- wide”  in  any  sense. 

If  having  missions  here  and  there  outside  the 
United  States  makes  the  church  “a  world-wide  or¬ 
ganization,”  that  could  have  been  claimed  when 
it  had  only  one,  two,  or  three  missions  abroad; 
but  nobody  made  such  claim.  It  required  the  ab¬ 
normal  mental  conditions  of  recent  years,  to  im¬ 
agine  or  invent  “the  rapid  development  of  our 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  a  world-wide  or¬ 
ganization.  ’ 1 

A 'great  and  radical  change  like  that  cannot  be 
affected  by  popular  errors  of  speech,  or  fads  of 
ambition  or  imagination,  or  the  reiteration  of  cur¬ 
rent  phrases  such  as  “a  world-wide  organization” 
or  “a  world  church,”  or  even  by  a  blunder  in 
statutory  legislation.  That  is  a  matter  that  be¬ 
longs  to  the  organic  law,  and  every  well-informed 
person  should  know  that  in  this  particular  the 
Constitution  of  the  church  has  never  been  changed. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  remains  as  always  an  Ameri¬ 
can  church,  at  one  time  without  any  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  and  now  with  some  missions  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries,  and  now  without  some  she  once  had.  These 
incidents  or  accidents  do  not  change  the  essential 
fact,  as  the  history  shows.  When  Canada  went  off, 
the  church  was  intact  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and,  when  Japan  went  off,  the  church  in 
the  United  States  remained  the  same ;  and  so,  if  it 
takes  on  more  mission  fields  abroad,  or  loses  all 
her  foreign  missions,  the  church  remains  the  same 

183 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

The  suggestion  about  extending  the  scope  of 
“all  the  connectional  Boards/’  and  turning  them 
all,  with  all  their  machinery,  into  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields,  is  based  on  a  wrong  principle  and 
overlooks  some  very  important  practical  and  legal 
facts. 

It  not  only  ignores,  but  antagonizes  the  great 
historic  and  legal  fact  of  a  distinction  between  the 
home  church  in  the  United  States  and  the  missions 
in  foreign  countries.  Further,  it  advocates  the 
blotting  out  of  these  distinctions  between  the  home 
and  the  foreign  fields,  and  tends  to  rush  the  church 
and  to  force  it  into  being  4  ‘  a  world-wide  organiza¬ 
tion/  ’  the  very  thing  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  never  be. 

This  individual  instance  of  having  the  “con¬ 
nectional  Boards’  ’  in  the  United  States  swung 
into  the  foreign  countries,  means  that  there  should 
remain  no  distinction  between  the  foreign  mission 
and  the  home  church,  and  that  the  administration 
of  the  affairs  of  the  church  in  the  United  States 
should  be  on  the  level  of  the  foreign  missions 
and  that  they  should  be,  as  they  never  have  been 
carried  on  since  they  came  into  existence. 

Anyone,  however,  who  is  familiar  with  the  facts 
must  know  that  the  foreign  missions  are  different 
from  the  church  in  the  United  States  and  that  they 
differ  from  each  other,  so  that  there  must  be  dif¬ 
ferences  in  administration. 

The  suggestion  of  making  radical  changes  in 

184 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


the  “connectional  Boards”  may  to  some  minds 
look  like  a  matter  of  little  moment,  but  vital  prin¬ 
ciples  are  involved.  If  carried  out,  it  will  mean 
confusion  in  the  several  societies  and  in  the  home 
church,  with  added  labor  and  intensified  confusion 
in  the  foreign  missions. 

What  is  more  than  mere  inference  is  the  demon¬ 
stration  many  have  had  in  the  more  or  less  recent 
past,  for  some  have  a  vivid  recollection  of  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  tinkering  with  the  various  benevolent 
boards  of  the  church  which  have  gone  through 
various  processes  of  combination  and  decombina¬ 
tion  followed  by  recombination,  and  then  another 
dissolution  of  partnership,  and  all  with  a  loss  of 
efficiency,  and  money,  and  prestige;  and  it  is 
known  that  a  good  and  useful  society  became  ut¬ 
terly  lost  and  has  never  been  found.  Some  people 
seem  always  ready  for  a  jumble  and  a  rumble  of 
the  “ connectional  Boards,”  and  find  a  delight  in 
shifting  and  shuffling  these  bodies  and  changing 
this  or  that  office.  It  may  be  that  something 
chanced  to  turn  up  for  the  better,  but  that  must 
have  been  a  rare  result,  for  usually  there  have 
been  ludicrous  blunders  and  sad  failures  and  a 
new  composition  has  been  followed  by  decompo¬ 
sition,  and  then  by  an  attempted  restoration.  In¬ 
deed,  any  one  who  has  an  accurate  knowledge  of 
these  experiments  should  be  pardoned,  if  like  the 
editor  of  the  Pacific  Christian  Advocate,  he,  figur¬ 
atively  speaking,  throws  up  his  hands  in  horror 
at  the  idea  of  another  shuffle  in  the  connectional 
Boards.  The  injury  caused  by  former  attempts 

185 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


should  call  a  halt  on  any  propositions  of  this  char¬ 
acter. 

Each  Board  should  have  its  own  mission  and  be 
free  to  make  its  own  appeal  and  disburse  its  own 
funds,  and  the  people  can  intelligently  and  inde¬ 
pendently  make  their  own  response.  A  little  study 
will  show  that,  generally  speaking,  all  the  benevo¬ 
lent  societies,  excepting  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis¬ 
sions,  and,  later,  the  Woman’s  Foreign  Missionary 
Society  were  created  in  and  for  the  home  church, 
in  the  United  States,  and  not  for  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sionary  fields. 

The  Board  of  Home  Missions  and  Church  Ex¬ 
tension  was  for  the  homeland.  It  was  incorpor¬ 
ated  in  Pennsylvania,  with  headquarters  in  Phila¬ 
delphia,  and  the  law  recites:  “Its  purpose  shall 
be  to  prosecute  missionary  work  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  Charter,  in  the  United  States 
and  its  possessions,  not  including  the  Philippine 
Islands.”  What  place  has  that  in  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields?  It  is  American  and  for  the  United 
States  of  America  and  cannot  give  money  to  ter¬ 
ritory  not  covered  by  the  American  flag,  and  in 
one  instance  cannot  give  where  the  flag  does  fly. 

The  Board  of  Education  is  “to  diffuse  the  bless¬ 
ing  of  education  and  Christianity  throughout  the 
United  States.”  So  other  boards  were  for  the 
home  church.  The  Sunday  School  Board  and  the 
Tract  Society  were  primarily  for  the  United 
States,  but  years  ago  they  made  donations  to  for¬ 
eign  fields  but  did  not  interfere  with  their  admin¬ 
istration. 


186 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Notwithstanding  these  facts  the  church  did  not 
neglect  the  foreign  mission  fields,  for  these  mis¬ 
sions  received  assistance  along  all  these  lines,  and 
they  had  a  society  that  provided  for  everything. 
That  society  was  the  Foreign  Missionary  Society, 
or  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  This  Board  was 
and  is  the  link  between  the  home  church  and  the 
foreign  fields,  or,  if  the  figure  is  preferred,  the 
main  channel  of  communication  between  the 
church  and  the  foreign  missions,  and  it  embraced 
all  of  the  things  mentioned  in  its  care  for  the  for¬ 
eign  missionary  work,  and  so  it  continues  to  func¬ 
tion.  It  is  a  Church  Extension  Society  and  it 
builds  (churches  in  foreign  missions.  It  is  an 
Education  Society  and  creates  schools  and  colleges 
and  sustains  them  for  the  foreign  missions,  and, 
so,  it  does  everything  else  for  these  missions  as 
far  as  its  funds  permit. 

The  Foreign  Mission  Board  has  been  doing  all 
this,  and  more,  for  many  years,  and  now  to  rush 
in  all  the  other  Boards,  regardless  of  this  concen¬ 
trated  and  unified  action  of  this  time-honored 
Board,  seems  to  show  a  lack  of  appreciation  or 
understanding  of  what  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis¬ 
sions  is  for  and  what  it  has  done,  and  is  calculated 
to  develop  inexpressible  commotion  and  confusion. 
With  the  foreign  Boards  these  other  United  States 
Boards  are  unnecessary.  It  combines  the  work  of 
all. 

In  this  age  of  dash  and  recklessness,  the  church 
is  in  as  much  danger  as  the  state.  When  founda¬ 
tions  are  being  weakened  and  swept  away  it  is  no 

187 


t 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

time  for  carelessness  in  church  affairs.  Every 
proposition  should  be  severely  scrutinized  and  no 
strange  thing  should  pass  without  challenge. 
Many  wild  things  will  brazenly  demand  adoption 
and  a  measure  of  suspicion  may  be  needed.  We 
should  heed  the  exhortation:  1  1 Prove  all  things; 
hold  fast  that  which  is  good.”1 


*1  Thess.  5.  21. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  FUTURE  OF  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  FUTURE  OF  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

Some  intelligent  and  highly  respected  people 
who  have  made  a  careful  and  conscientious  study 
of  humanity  and  world  conditions,  and  a  sympa¬ 
thetic  survey  of  foreign  missions,  hold,  and  say 
that  sooner  or  later  the  missions  of  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  foreign  countries  should  be 
made  independent  churches  within  the  hounds  of 
their  respective  nationalities,  and  they  predict 
that  this  will  be  done. 

But,  if  that  is  correct,  nevertheless  there  is  no 
good  reason  why  the  independence  should  come 
out  of  chaos  caused  by  breaking  down  the  consti¬ 
tutional  episcopacy  and  the  church  polity  that  has 
done  so  much  for  the  spread  and  success  of  the 
church  both  at  home  and  abroad.  If  it  should 
come,  or  is  to  come,  it  is  better  that  it  come  in  an 
orderly  and  fraternal  way  as  among  friends  who 
are  to  remain  friends,  or  as  a  natural  evolution, 
rather  than  in  the  confusion  of  a  catastrophe 
brought  on  by  those  who  thought  they  were  help¬ 
ing  in  the  work  of  the  church.  That  there  are  ten¬ 
dencies  toward  independence  in  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  must  be  patent  to  every  intelligent  observer 
who  has  been  in  position  to  see  and  has  had  capa¬ 
city  to  perceive  and  comprehend  passing  events. 

Looking  back  into  the  early  years,  it  requires 

191 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


only  a  little  knowledge  of  onr  church  and  mission¬ 
ary  history  to  know  that  the  Canadian  missions  to 
the  north  of  us  amicably  separated  from  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  formed  a  church 
of  their  own  within  their  own  political  boundaries. 

Only  a  little  more  of  the  later  history  tells  us 
that  our  missions  in  Japan  became  independent 
by  mutual  agreement,  and  that  now  there  is  a 
Methodist  Church  of  Japan  with  its  own  discip¬ 
line  and  episcopacy,  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Japan,  for  the  people  of  Japan,  within 
the  bounds  of  the  Japanese  empire  and  directed  by 
its  own  Japanese  membership. 

Quite  at  the  very  beginning  of  its  history,  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  became  a  separatist 
and  absolutely  independent,  by  severing  its  rela¬ 
tion  with  Wesley  and  the  mother  organization  in 
Great  Britain.  This  may  be  said  to  have  been  done 
in  two  ways  and  at  two  different  times.  First,  when 
the  American  Methodists  organized  themselves 
into  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America ; 
and,  second,  when  they  rescinded  the  resolution 
pledging  their  continution  of  their  connection  with 
their  fellow  Wesleyans  in  Great  Britain,  and  their 
governmental  obedience  to  their  reverend  founder 
John  Wesley. 

With  that  example  and  precedent  before  them  it 
should  not  seem  surprising  that  the  offspring  of 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  foreign  lands 
and  at  considerable  distance  from  the  mother 
church  would  feel  free  to  withdraw  from  the  shel¬ 
tering  and  fostering  fireside  of  the  olden  time,  and 

192 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


to  set  up  ecclesiastical  housekeeping  for  them¬ 
selves.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  an¬ 
nounced  the  principles  between  the  home  church 
and  the  home  self-government  on  the  one  hand, 
and  work  in  foreign  fields  and  foreign  govern¬ 
ments  on  the  other. 

So  in  their  turn  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Mis¬ 
sions  in  Canada  in  1828,  and  those  in  Japan  in 
1907,  severed  their  connection  with  the  mother 
church,  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  formed  their  own 
Episcopal  Methodist  Churches  within  their  own 
national  territory,  and  all  parties  concerned  ex¬ 
pressed  satisfaction. 

Now,  does  anybody  suppose  that  no  other  for¬ 
eign  mission  will  ever  separate  and  become  an  in¬ 
dependent  Methodist  organization?  The  reasons 
that  caused  the  movements  for  independence  in 
the  countries  named  now  exist  and  grow  in  other 
lands  and  are  likely  to  assert  themselves  at  almost 
any  time.  When  they  do  we  should  not  be  startled 
or  greatly  disturbed.  We  ourselves  enunciated 
the  principle  and  set  the  example.  Humanity  has. 
always  cried  out  for  liberty  and  demanded  self- 
government.  In  the  last  three  or  four  years  the 
aspiration  has  gained  greater  strength.  One 
might  say  that  it  has  been  stronger  than  ever  be¬ 
fore.  The  Great  War  and  its  accompanying  diplo¬ 
macy  has  stimulated  it,  and  the  popular  teaching 
of  the  right  of  “sejf-determination”  has  encour¬ 
aged  local  assertion  of  racial  and  other  claims. 
The  result  is  seen  in  the  rising  of  many  small 

193 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUPvCH 


groups  of  people  and  the  formation  of  new  nations 
and  governments,  sometimes  perhaps  not  wisely, 
but  people  want  what  they  want,  and  because 
they  want  a  thing  they  demand  it,  and,  often, 
simply  because  they  demand  it,  they  get  it.  Thus 
we  see  peoples  rising  here  and  there.  It  may  not 
be  a  question  of  propriety  or  justice.  These 
points  we  are  not  discussing.  We  are  merely 
pointing  out  facts  and  conditions. 

There  are  upheavals  in  Egypt,  in  India,  and  in 
other  countries — one  may  say  in  every  continent 
and  almost  in  every  country.  This  is  an  age  with 
an  intensified  spirit  of  nationality,  racial  con¬ 
sciousness,  and  the  dislike  of  all  rule,  and  espe¬ 
cially  foreign  rules. 

These  racial  and  national  aspirations  tending  to 
revolution,  sanguinary  or  peaceful,  in  the  state, 
naturally  will  have  some  corresponding  manifes¬ 
tations  in  the  church.  Such  results  have  been  seen 
in  the  recent  years  whose  shadow  still  enshroud 
us,  and  old  ecclesiasticisms  have  felt  the  effect. 
Such  things  are  to  be  expected  in  both  church  and 
state,  for  the  same  kind  of  people  who  are  in  the 
state  are  also  in  the  church,  and  the  same  people 
in  the  nation  who  say  we  will  not  have  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  foreign  race  are  likely  to  say  we  will 
not  be  governed  by  the  foreign  church,  and  so  may 
arise  the  desire  and  the  demand  for  a  church 
within  the  nation  and  of  the  nation.  Canada  felt 
some  of  that  sentiment,  and,  likewise,  did  Japan, 
and  others  may  have  the  same  feeling. 

Premonitions  have  already  been  observed  in 

194 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


more  than  one  mission  and  more  than  one  conti¬ 
nent.  In  some  places  preachers  and  people  have 
openly  expressed  something  more  than  a  wish  for 
self-government.  Some  have  practically  demanded 
that  they  shall  have  bishops  of  their  own  race, 
and  they  have  demanded  a  generous  share  of  other 
official  positions  for  their  own  kind  of  people. 
They  may  be  very  grateful  for  what  missionaries 
have  brought  them  and  done  for  them,  but  they 
think  that  having  been  taught  and  having  learned 
their  lesson,  they  now  have  reached  the  point 
where  they  can  take  care  of  themselves.  These 
facts  have  been  recognized  and  efforts  have  been 
made  to  give  more  local  official  positions  to  na¬ 
tives  in  their  respective  countries.  That  this  will 
entirely  satisfy  the  yearning  for  power  and  inde¬ 
pendence  is  more  than  doubtful. 

Various  movements  in  India  illustrate  strength¬ 
ening  racial  demands,  and  are  more  than  a  mere 
suggestion  of  realignment,  and  the  Central  Chris¬ 
tian  Advocate  tells  that  “  There  is  going  on  in 
China  a  movement  which  in  the  near  future  may 
produce  the  phenomenon  of  a  distinctive  Chinese 
church — we  almost  wrote  it  Chinese  Christianity,” 
and  another  publication  states  that  “observers 
familiar  with  the  situation”  say  that  “China  is  at 
the  moment  laying  the  foundation  for  a  national 
Chinese  church,”  which  some  say  “may  one  day 
reteach  the  principles  of  Christianity  to  those 
from  whom  she  learned  them. 1 11 

Not  long  ago  there  was  a  National  Christian 

lThe  Literary  Digest,  September  9,  1922. 

195 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Conference,  held  in  Shanghai,  in  which  were  five 
hundred  sixty-five  Chinese  delegates,  and  it  is 
stated  that  this  Conference  4  ‘  not  only  inaugurated 
steps  for  the  establishment  of  a  national  Christian 
Church  free  of  the  denominationalism  of  the  West, 
but  adopted  a  program  which  for  sheer  Christian 
spirit  may  well  be  numbered  among  historic  reli¬ 
gious  documents.”  Such  instances  show  that  what 
we  have  indicated  as  the  trend  in  foreign  Chris¬ 
tian  missions  is  well  within  the  facts,  and  that 

/ 

much  stronger  statements  might  be  made. 

That  the  foreign  missions  are  becoming  different 
in  some  respects  from  the  home  church  must  be 
apparent  to  the  student  who  is  familiar  with  these 
affairs.  Doubtless  some  of  these  differences  grow 
out  of  local  peculiarities  which  belong  to  the  dif¬ 
ferences  in  race,  in  heredity,  in  tradition,  in  edu¬ 
cation,  and  in  national  government,  peculiarities 
that  naturally  tend  to  self-assertion  and  ulti¬ 
mately  to  ecclesiastical  independence.  We  are  not 
saying  that  no  concessions  should  be  made  in  view 
of  these  conditions,  but  are  merely  pointing  out 
the  facts  as  they  exist. 

Beyond  this,  however,  it  may  seem  strange  to 
note  that  some  things  have  been  done  by  mission¬ 
aries,  and  even  by  the  General  Conference,  that  in¬ 
crease  and  foster  these  differences  and  gradually 
make  the  foreign  mission  more  and  more  unlike 
the  home  church.  Sometimes  there  is  direct  legis¬ 
lation,  decision,  or  some  precedent  which  on  a 
given  point  makes  the  law  abroad  different  from 
the  corresponding  law  at  home,  and  it  may  be  said 

196 


AND  ITS  FOBEIGN  MISSIONS 


that  at  the  time  of  the  legislation  or  transaction 
the  bearing  and  effect  of  the  act  are  not  generally 
recognized. 

We  are  not  now  inquiring  as  to  whether  these 
things  are  right  or  wrong,  but  simply  indicating 
that  they  exist.  It  may  be  claimed  that  they  are 
inevitable  and  that  the  different  nature  of  the 
work  in  the  foreign  field  necessitates  the  different 
law  or  the  different  usage.  In  some  cases  this 
may  be  correct,  but  in  others  it  may  not  be  so 
clear.  Whatever  may  be  the  cause,  the  tendency 
seems  plain. 

However,  variations  in  a  number  of  things  may 
be  seen,  and  so  frequently  that  there  is  a  manifest 
tendency  to  do  differently  abroad  from  what  is 
done  at  home.  As  suggested,  perhaps  in  some 
things  this  may  seem  right  and  may  be  held  to  be 
right,  but  it  may  go  too  far  and  weaken  the  bonds 
between  the  foreign  mission  and  the  home  church. 
Then,  if  the  variations  are  right,  and  the  break 
comes,  of  course  those  who  have  sanctioned  the 
differences  should  not  complain. 

Things  have  been  done  that  if  they  go  on  will 

make  the  missions  in  foreign  lands  dissimilar  from 

the  mother  church  in  America.  If  this  tendencv 

%/ 

to  difference  in  laws  and  usages  is  a  necessity  and 
must  go  on,  the  probable  outcome  may  easily  be 
perceived,  for,  when  it  matures,  like  the  ripened 
fruit,  the  mission  may  drop  off  from  the  home 
plant  that  originally  gave  it  life.  Of  course,  if 
there  is  real  maturity,  this  may  be  a  natural  and 
right  result,  nevertheless,  missionary  legislation 

197 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and  administration  should  be  scrutinized  with 
greater  severity  than  sometimes  it  has  received. 

On  the  other  hand,  changes  of  view  have  been 
taking  place  in  the  home  church.  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  centered  in  the  United  States 
of  America,  and  regarding  itself  as  an  American 
church,  has  taken  a  great  missionary  interest  in 
the  unChristianized  world  beyond  its  borders.  It 
has  introduced  the  Christian  religion  into  many 
parts  of  the  world.  It  has  offered  its  prayers  by 
the  million  and  sent  its  millions  of  money  year 
after  year,  and  supported  its  selected  mission¬ 
aries,  besides  raising  up  a  native  ministry  and 
maintaining  many  schools  and  other  beneficent 
institutions,  and  this  it  is  willing  to  go  on  doing, 
but  it  expects  these  foreign  missions  to  strengthen 
and  care  for  themselves,  so  that  the  church  may  be 
free  to  move  on,  and  to  throw  its  strength  and 
resources  into  other  fields. 

With  all  its  wonderful  liberality,  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  does  not  want  to  have  its  own 
strength  sapped  and  its  resources  exhausted,  so 
that  it  shall  lose  vigor  and  vitality  at  its  center, 
and  not  be  able  to  maintain  its  position  and  do  its 
best  work  in  the  homeland.  It  is,  therefore,  not 
surprising  that  economists  study  the  financial  bal¬ 
ance,  and  that  men  of  broad  views  get  a  little 
anxious  about  the  conditions  and  work  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  wonder  whether 
the  proper  balance  is  being  preserved. 

For  example,  questions  are  raised  by  some,  on 
account  of  what  they  term  the  great  expense  of 

198 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


bringing  foreign  delegates  from  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields  to  the  General  Conference,  and  enter¬ 
taining  them  during  their  stay  in  connection  with 
it  in  the  United  States,  at  least  for  about  a  month. 
They  say  this  is  a  heavy  and  unnecessary  item  and 
a  considerable  tax  upon  the  church,  especially 
when  it  is  remembered  that  proportionately  their 
numbers  are  as  great  as  the  delegates  from  the 
American  Conferences.  People  in  the  home 
church  say  “Why  should  we  pay  so  much  to  bring 
people  from  distant  and  foreign  lands  to  our 
General  Conference  to  vote  and  to  some  extent, 
control  us,  when  we  know  what  we  want,  while 
their  training  is  so  different  from  that  received  in 
the  United  States,  and  when  sometimes  they  have 
little  knowledge  of  the  English  tongue,  which  is 
the  official  language  of  the  church  in  its  General 
Conference  discussions,  reports,  votes,  and  rec¬ 
ords  f”  Some  even  go  so  far  as  to  think  that  it 
ought  not  be  necessary  to  bring  all  these  good 
people  from  their  work  which  is  persistently  de¬ 
manding  their  attention  in  the  distant  foreign 
fields,  while  the  visit  to  the  General  Conference 
in  the  United  States  means  a  loss  of  possibly  a 
fourth  of  a  year  from  their  needed  and  valuable 
service. 

Some  even  question  the  need  of  their  coming 
at  all,  when  the  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  is  giving  them  such  liberal  support,  and 
there  are  those  in  the  United  States  ready  to 
represent  the  foreign  mission  work. 

Then  these  questioners  ask  why  a  foreign  mis- 

199 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


sion  field  should  be  represented  by  their  own  dele¬ 
gates,  and  they  point  to  a  time  when  no  delegate 
came  from  a  foreign  mission  and  one  was  not  ex¬ 
pected  to  come  from  a  foreign  mission  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  in  America. 

It  is  an  historic  fact  that  at  one  time  the  church 
had  missions  in  foreign  countries  but  from  them 
no  delegates  came  to  the  General  Conferences. 
In  that  period  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
founded  and  sustained  missions  abroad,  sending 
missionaries  and  contributing  money  to  spread 
Christianity  in  foreign  lands,  but  no  delegates 
from  these  missions  sat  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ences.  Now  there  are  delegates  on  an  equality 
with  the  delegates  from  the  home  church,  and 
with  votes  that  may  match  the  votes  from  the 
United  States  vote  for  vote  and  may  even  have 
the  chance,  with  any  other  equal  number,  to  hold 
the  balance  of  power.  At  some  time  there  must 
have  been  an  interesting  change.  The  General 
Conference  of  1868  saw  the  first  representative 
from  a  foreign  mission  seated  in  a  General  Con¬ 
ference  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
that,  with  other  special  events,  made  it  a  memor¬ 
able  Conference. 

This  seating  of  a  representative  from  a  foreign 
mission  Conference  was  preceded,  and,  doubtless, 
influenced  by  another  action  of  this  General  Con¬ 
ference,  which  opened  the  way  for,  and  created 
the  parliamentary  flood  which  swept  in  this  for¬ 
eign  missionary  who  had  not  been  duly  elected  a 
delegate  to  the  General  Conference. 

200 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


The  history  of  the  event  is  exceedingly  inter¬ 
esting  and  highly  illuminating.  The  previous 
General  Conference,  in  1864,  was  held  during,  and 
toward  the  closing  period  of  the  Civil  War,  which 
had  a  relation  to  the  question  of  human  slavery. 
Because  of  this  old  subject  of  controversy,  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  some  years,  had 
not  been  operating  in  the  farther  South,  though  it 
never  was  out  of  the  South,  or  out  of  slave  terri¬ 
tory.  Now,  however,  the  armies  of  the  national 
government  had  opened  up  considerable  sections 
of  the  more  distant  South,  and  it  was  proposed  to 
embrace  the  opportunity  for  the  resumption  of 
church  operations. 

In  1845  certain  Southern  Conferences  had  with¬ 
drawn  from  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  organized  a  new  body  which  they  called  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  That  made 
a  period  of  only  nineteen  years  and  many  leaders 
on  both  sides  still  lived,  and  also  others  who  had 
belonged  to  the  original  church. 

The  bishops  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
considered  that  the  time  had  come  when  this 
church  should  restore  to  the  distant  South  its 
ministrations,  and  one  reason  was  the  needy  con¬ 
dition  of  the  section  which  had  suffered  so  greatly 
from  marching  armies  and  the  exhausting  effects 
of  years  of  devastating  warfare.  So  the  bishops 
of  the  church  in  their  episcopal  address  said  to  the 
General  Conference  of  1864:  “And  now,  the  way 
being  open  for  the  return  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  it  is  but  natural  that  she  should 

201 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


reenter  those  fields  and  once  more  realize  her  un¬ 
changed  title  as  ‘  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America.’  ”  1 

This  use  of  the  legal  title  of  the  denomination 
was  an  assertion  that  it  was  not  a  limited,  sectional 
body,  but  that  it  belonged  to  the  whole  United 
States  of  America,  and  that  it  owed  service  to, 
and  in  every  part  of  this  country.  So  the  church 
went  into  these  Southern  sections,  from  which  it 
had  been  debarred  by  slavery  and  slave  condi¬ 
tions,  but  from  which  slavery  had  been  banished. 
Then  the  church  sent  preachers,  gathered  people 
who  came  to  them  voluntarily,  and  formed  Con¬ 
ferences  of  preachers. 

These  Conferences  were  not  full  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences,  but  formative  bodies,  and  the  general 
advance  was  a  home  missionary  movement,  and,  in 
the  meantime,  the  Conferences  could  not  be  com¬ 
plete  without  further  time,  and  until  a  subsequent 
General  Conference  had  given  them  a  matured 
Annual  Conference  status.  At  best  they  were  only 
Mission  Conferences,  and,  therefore,  could  not 
have  their  own  delegates  in  the  next  General  Con¬ 
ference,  namely,  that  of  1868. 

The  preachers  in  that  part  of  the  South  appear 
to  have  recognized  these  facts  and  hence  did  not 
elect  delegates  to  that  General  Conference,  though 
they  did  select,  and  send,  persons  whom  they 
called  “representatives,”  who  might,  and  could, 
go  to  the  seat  of  the  General  Conference. 

When  this  General  Conference,  of  1868,  con- 

’General  Conference  Journal ,  1864,  pp.  278,  279, 

m 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


vened,  these  persons  were  not  listed  as  delegates 
to  the  body,  but  they  were  classed  in  the  Journal 
as  4  ‘  representatives/  ’  as  their  Conferences  had 
named  them.  These  Southern  Conferences  that 
had  selected  these  “representatives,”  were  as  fol¬ 
lows:  Alabama,  Delaware,  Georgia,  Holston,  Mis¬ 
sissippi,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas,  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  North  Carolina,  and  Washington. 

The  law  did  not  recognize  any  such  officials  as 
“representatives,”  but,  nevertheless,  on  the  very 
first  day  of  the  session,  namely,  May  1,  1868,  an 
issue  was  joined,  when  “R.  S.  Foster  presented 
the  certificate  of  the  election  of  John  P.  Newman 
as  a  representative  from  the  Mississippi  Mission 
Conference,  and  then  moved  that  the  whole  sub¬ 
ject  of  representation  of  Mission  Conferences  to 
this  body  be  referred  to  a  Special  Committee  of 
seven  members.”1 

That  R.  S.  Foster  presented  the  case  of  his 
friend  John  P.  Newman  is  no  proof  that  he  favored 
the  admission  of  these  “representatives”  from 
these  Mission  Conferences.  That  his  motion  de¬ 
clared  them  to  be  Mission,  and  not  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences,  on  the  contrary,  shows  that  he  knew  that 
Mission  Conferences  could  not  elect  delegates,  and 
that  no  one  could  be  legally  admitted  who  was  not 
a  regular  delegate.  Still  further  we  know  that  he 
voted  against  their  admission.2 

“The  President  announced  the  following  com¬ 
mittee  on  the  matter  of  admitting  the  Representa- 

^eneral  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  23. 

'Ibid.,  p.  130. 


203 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


tives  from  the  Mission  Conferences  to  wit:  R.  S. 
Foster,  J.  M.  Reid,  E.  0.  Haven,  Dr.  Curry,  J. 
Lanahan,  J.  G.  Bruce,  and  L.  Hitchcock.  ’ 91 

This  committee  reported  on  the  sixth  of  May. 
The  report  was  rather  conservative,  and,  evi¬ 
dently,  was  intended  to  be  a  very  guarded  expres¬ 
sion.  It  believed  that  “the  disabilities  should  be 
removed’ ’  from  these  Southern  Conferences,  and 
recommended  ‘  ‘  that  they  be  invested  with  the  full 
rights  of  Annual  Conferences ;  provided ,  That 
this  action  shall  not  be  construed  so  as  to  affect 
or  determine  anything  with  respect  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  their  previous  status.”  They  recom¬ 
mended  also  “that  the  representatives”  “be  in¬ 
vited  to  seats  at  once  on  the  floor  of  this  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  to  participate  in  all  its  deliberations,  to 
speak  on  all  questions,  offer  resolutions,  and  do 
all  other  things,  and  have  all  other  rights  which 
any  member  of  this  body  may  have  and  do,  except 
vote.”* 2 

This  shows  that  the  committee  knew  that  the 
so-called  4  ‘  representatives  ’ ’  were  not  ‘ 1  delegates,  ’ 9 
that  the  Conferences  did  not  elect,  and  had  no 
legal  right  to  elect  “delegates,”  and  that  the  per¬ 
sons  in  question  could  not  legally  take  part  in  the 
decisions  of  the  body.  That  is  what  “except 
vote”  meant.  Other  propositions  were  offered 
from  the  floor  as  substitutes,  but,  with  the  com¬ 
mittee  ’s  report,  were  laid  on  the  table.3 

General  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  26. 

2IMd.,  p.  94. 

3 Ibid p.  127. 


204 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


“W.  L.  Harris  then  offered  a  series  of  resolu¬ 
tions  on  the  same  subject,”1  and  his  resolutions 
were  adopted  after  several  attempts  to  amend 
them.  The  resolutions  contained  the  words  “Pro¬ 
visional  Delegates,”  and  “G.  B.  Jocelyn  moved 
to  amend  by  striking  out  the  word  ‘  provisional, ’  ’  9 
but  the  motion  was  laid  on  the  table. 

The  adoption  of  these  resolutions,  first,  repealed 
the  restrictions  placed  upon  these  Southern  Con¬ 
ferences  by  the  General  Conference  of  1864 ; 
second,  declared  them  “to  be  Annual  Conferences 
of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  vested  with  all  the  rights, 
privileges  and  immunities  usual  to  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences  of  said  Church”;  and,  third,  “that  the 
Provisional  Delegates  to  this  body,  elected  by  the 
aforesaid  Conferences  severally,  are  hereby  ad¬ 
mitted  to  membership  in  this  General  Conference 
on  the  presentation  of  the  requisite  credentials.”2 
The  vote  was:  Ayes,  197;  Noes,  15;  Absent,  19.3 
Among  the  Noes,  voting  on  this  matter,  we  note 
the  names  of  Doctor  Daniel  Curry,  of  the  New 
York  East  Conference;  William  H.  Ferris,  of  the 
New  York  Conference;  Doctor  Randolph  S.  Fos¬ 
ter,  of  the  New  York  Conference;  Doctor  John 
Lanahan,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference;  Doctor 
James  Porter,  of  the  New  England  Conference; 
Doctor  David  Sherman,  of  the  New  England  Con¬ 
ference;  Doctor  Henry  Slicer,  of  the  East  Balti- 

JGeneral  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  127. 

2lbid.,  p.  130. 

'Ibid.,  p.  130. 


205 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


more  Conference,  and  other  well-known  names 
from  other  Conferences.1 

They  were  a  small  minority  against  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  that  swept  the  General  Conference,  but 
they  were  mighty  men  whose  opinion  was  worthy 
of  profound  respect. 

Some  things  in  these  resolutions  should  com¬ 
mand  careful  scrutiny.  One  thing  is  novel  and 
questionable.  Doctor  Harris  introduced  into  his 
resolutions  a  new  title,  which  had  not  appeared 
in  the  transactions,  and  which  was  utterly  un¬ 
known  to  the  law  of  the  church.  He  says  in  the 
third  resolution :  ‘  ‘  That  the  Provisional  Delegates 
to  this  body,  elected  by  the  aforesaid  Conference 
severally,  are  hereby  admitted,”  whereas  the  fact 
is  that  the  said  Conferences  elected  no  “Provi¬ 
sional  Delegates,”  or  any  other  kind  of  delegates. 
They  elected  what  they  called  “representatives,” 
and  the  title  “Provisional  Delegates”  was  not 
used;  and,  further,  the  title  “Provisional  Dele¬ 
gates”  was  not  legal,  actual,  or  even  practically 
correct.  The  title  was  invented — a  rhetorical  in¬ 
vention — and  was  used  as  an  equivalent  of  the 
other  title  “representatives,”  which  had  no 
standing  in  the  law,  and  was  unknown  to  the 
nomenclature  of  the  church.  Nevertheless,  it 
seems  to  have  had  influence  in  gaining  votes  for 
the  resolutions,  and  in  later  years  it  came  up 
again  to  make  easy  other  irregularities. 

The  “representatives”  were  not  “Provisional 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  130. 

206 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Delegates”  in  law  or  fact,  and  they  were  not  dele¬ 
gates  at  all  of  any  sort  known  to  the  law,  and, 
hence,  they  could  not  be  admitted,  for  only  legal 
delegates  could  be  legally  admitted  to  member¬ 
ship  in  the  General  Conference. 

The  Conferences  in  question  had  no  authority 
to  elect  delegates;  and  if  they  had  attempted  to 
elect  delegates  without  adequate  authority,  the 
action  would  have  been  null  and  void.  So  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference,  limited  by  the  Constitution,  had 
no  authority  to  admit  as  members  of  its  body 
those  who  had  not  been  legally  elected,  for  it  had 
no  right  to  legalize  an  election  that  was  illegal, 
and  calling  bodies  Annual  Conferences  could  not 
make  legal  elections  held  by  the  bodies  when  they 
were  not  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  transformed 
Conferences,  after  they  were  called  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences,  did  not  attempt  to  rectify  the  illegality 
by  reelecting  the  parties  as  delegates,  and  they 
could  not  have  done  so,  for  they  were  not  in  ses¬ 
sion  and  the  time  for  electing  had  passed. 

The  General  Conference  by  its  declaration 
could  not  transform  previously  elected  “repre¬ 
sentatives”  into  legal  delegates.  There  was  no 
legal  ground  for  its  action  and  what  the  General 
Conference  did  was  unconstitutional. 

The  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  1868 
apparently  were  affected  by  a  reaction  of  the  re¬ 
cent  Civil  War,  and,  swayed  by  sympathy  and  the 
spirit  of  patriotism,  an  emotional  impulse  blinded 
them  to  the  law  and  logic  of  the  case,  and  rushed 
them  into  doing  what  they  thought  was  a  practical 

207 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and  generous  thing,  but,  all  the  same,  it  was  a 
violation  of  the  law  and  the  Constitution. 

This  irregular  and  unconstitutional  action 
naturally  led  to  other  irregular  consequences.  Re¬ 
acting  from  the  strain  of  the  war,  and  thrilled  by 
the  sight  of  new  opportunities,  they  made  one  mis¬ 
take,  and  having  made  one  it  was  easier  to  make 
another.  Having  illegally  admitted  the  “repre¬ 
sentatives-”  from  the  new  Mission  Conferences,  it 
was  easy  to  disregard  the  law  still  further.  As 
they  may  have  said:  “If  we  have  admitted  repre¬ 
sentatives  from  these  Mission  Conferences,  how 
can  we  refuse  to  admit  them  from  other  Mission 
Conferences?” 

At  the  seat  of  the  General  Conference  there  was 
a  returned  missionary  from  the  mission  field  in 
India.  No  delegate  from  a  foreign  mission  field 
had  ever  been  admitted  to  a  General  Conference. 
Indeed,  it  was  an  accepted  fact  that  no  one  could 
come  and  be  admitted.  But  this  General  Confer¬ 
ence  had  admitted  persons  from  American  Mis¬ 
sion  Conferences,  then  whv  not  admit  a  man  from 
a  foreign  Mission  Conference?  Anyhow  he  was 
only  one.  The  matter,  however,  involved  historic 
facts  and  legal  principles. 

The  question  involved  the  status  of  a  Confer¬ 
ence  in  a  foreign  mission  field.  We  turn  to  the 
proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of  1864, 
held  only  four  years  previously,  and  find  that  that 
Conference  adopted  the  following: 

“1.  Resolved ,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference,  our  Foreign  Missions  should  be 

208 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


organized  into  Mission  Annual  Conferences,  so 
soon  as  their  condition  severally  shall  render  such 
organization  proper,  and  that  such  Mission  Con¬ 
ference  shall,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  presid¬ 
ing  bishop,  possess  all  the  rights,  powers,  and 
privileges  of  other  Annual  Conferences,  excepting 
that  of  sending  delegates  to  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  and  of  drawing  their  annual  dividends  from 
the  avails  of  the  Book  Concern  and  the  Chartered 
Fund,  and  of  voting  on  constitutional  changes  pro¬ 
posed  in  the  Discipline.”1 . 

That  meant  that,  while  the  Conference  in  the 
Foreign  Mission  should  meet  annually,  it  was  only 
a  Mission  Conference;  that  it  had  no  claim  upon 
the  Book  Concern  dividend  and  the  Chartered 
Fund ;  that  it  could  not  vote  on  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  church;  and  that  it  could  not 
send  delegates  to  the  General  Conference. 

The  second  resolution  was :  ‘  ‘  That  this  General 
Conference  organize  the  Missions  in  India  into  a 
Mission  Annual  Conference,  with  powers  limited 
as  above”;  and  the  third  was  an  authorization  to 
the  bishops  ‘  ‘  to  organize  any  other  of  our  Foreign 
Missions  into  Mission  Conferences  subject  to  the 
above  limitations.”2 

That  was  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1864,  and  by  that  action  there  was  not  one  for¬ 
eign  field  that  had  a  Conference  that  was  com¬ 
petent  to  elect  a  delegate  to  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1868.  By  the  act  of  the  General  Confer- 

’General  Conference  Journal,  1864,  p.  138. 

2ma. 


209 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ence  of  1864  even  a  ‘  ‘  Mission  Annual  Conference  ’ ’ 
iu  a  foreign  mission  field  was  specifically  pro¬ 
hibited  from  ‘  *  sending  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference/  ’  and  if  anyone  attempted  to  send  a 
delegate  to  that  body  it  would  be  a  violation  of 
that  law  and  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  church. 

Notwithstanding  all  this  a  missionary  who  had 
been  serving  in  India  was  found  standing  at  the 
door  of  the  General  Conference  of  1868.  This  was 
the  Reverend  John  T.  Gracey,  a  very  worthy  min¬ 
ister  and  a  successful  missionary,  and  quite  fit  to 
be  a  delegate,  but  India  was  only  a  Mission  Con¬ 
ference  and  had  no  right  to  elect  any  one  for  mem¬ 
bership  in  the  General  Conference. 

On  the  eighteenth  day  of  the  session,  the  record 
shows  that  “  J.  F.  Peck  asked  and  obtained  leave 
of  temporary  absence  for  the  Committee  on  Itin¬ 
erancy  in  order  to  consider  the  credentials  of  J. 
T.  Gracey,  claiming  a  seat  in  the  body  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  the  India  Mission  Conference.”1 

The  case  of  the  representatives  from  the  new 
Southern  Conferences  was  brought  up  on  the  very 
first  day,  and  one  may  wonder  why  the  case  of 
the  missionary  from  India  was  not  presented  until 
the  eighteenth  day.  Perhaps  the  doubts  as  to 
legality  had  been  stronger  than  in  the  cases  of 
the  Americans,  but  they  had  granted  the  plea  in 
the  first  instance,  and  they  might  in  the  other. 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  twenty-fourth  day,  “On 
motion  of  R.  S.  Foster,  J.  T.  Gracey,  representa- 

’General  Conference  Journal,  1868,  pp.  223,  224. 

210 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


tive  of  the  India  Mission  Conference,  was  invited 
to  a  seat  within  the  bar  of  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,”1  and,  a  little  later  that  afternoon,  “On 
motion  of  J.  McClintock,  J.  T.  Gracey  was  re¬ 
quested  to  speak  on  the  subject  before  the  Con¬ 
ference,”2  which  was  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Itinerancy  on  the  matter  of  Foreign  Mission 
Conferences. 

This  report  recommended  the  transformation  of 
foreign  Conferences  into  Annual  Conferences,  and 
the  final  resolution  was  as  follows:  “Resolved,  4. 
That  J.  T.  Gracey  be  and  hereby  is  admitted  to 
membership  in  this  General  Conference  as  Dele¬ 
gate  from  the  India  Annual  Conference.”3 

The  adoption  of  this  report  enacted  all  these 
provisions,  and  the  Reverend  John  T.  Gracey  was 
admitted  on  the  twenty-ninth  day  of  May  and  sat 
until  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference  on  the 
second  day  of  June,  so  he  was  recognized  as  a 
member  for  a  very  few  days,  but  the  action  was 
far-reaching. 

The  facts  and  arguments  relating  to  the  so- 
called  “representatives”  from  the  Southern  Con¬ 
ferences  in  America  apply  in  this  instance,  but 
with  added  force  and  additional  reasons  touching 
the  foreign  field.  As  in  the  cases  of  the  Southern 
representatives,  the  action  was  irregular  and  il¬ 
legal.  The  missionary  from  India  was  not  elected 
as  a  delegate,  and  the  Mission  Conference  to  which 

‘General  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  279. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1868. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1868,  p.  282. 

211 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


he  belonged  could  not  so  elect  him,  and  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  had  no  anthority  to  elect  or  make 
him  a  delegate. 

It  is  possible  that  the  intention  of  the  Mission 
Conferences  was  to  have  in  the  ‘  ‘  representative,  ’  ’ 
such  a  representative,  or  agent,  as  a  territory  of 
the  United  States  has  at  Washington,  one  who 
looks  after  the  interests  of  the  locality  but  has  no 
vote  in  Congress. 

From  this  single  representative  from  the  entire 
foreign  field,  entering  the  General  Conference  in 
this  very  nnnsnal  way,  there  has  grown  to  be  a 
large  number  of  delegates  from  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields  who  have  added  to  the  increasing  bulk, 
as  well  as  the  expense  of  the  General  Conference, 
and  these  things  have  led  to  many  comments  and 
questions. 

Some  who  have  an  economical  turn  of  mind  de¬ 
clare  that  the  General  Conference  has  become  too 
large,  and  the  foreign  missions  present  one  way 
by  which  this  huge  body  may  be  reduced;  while 
others  say:  We  help  the  people  in  these  foreign 
misions  by  sending  them  our  money  and  our  mis¬ 
sionaries,  many  of  them  among  our  best  men,  now 
when  we  send  many  missionaries  and  our  money 
by  the  million,  why  should  the  laymen  and  min¬ 
isters  from  the  foreign  missions  come,  especially 
in  such  numbers,  into  our  General  Conference,  to 
govern  us  by  perhaps  holding  the  balance  of 
power?  They  also  call  attention  to  what  they 
assert  will  be  the  fact,  namely,  that  these  growing 
foreign  misions  will  in  the  near  future  send  an 

212 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


increasing  number  of  delegates  and  that  will  make 
their  influence  and  power  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  greater,  and  the  home  power  relatively  less, 
as  the  years  go  on. 

So  there  are  views  at  home  as  well  as  abroad, 
and  if  we  know  of  ideas  from  the  foreign  missions 
the  church  might  as  well  know  what  people  are 
thinking  and  saying  in  the  United  States,  even  if 
it  does  not  accept  all  they  say. 

The  facts  show  conflicting  fears  and  desires  at 
home  and  abroad  which  militate  against  the  notion 
of  a  world  ecclesiasticism. 

One  may  ask  why  any  one  in  this  enlightened 
and  matter-of-fact  age  should  want  a  church  to 
have  a  world-government.  Is  it  simply  for  the 
pleasure  of  controlling  the  world  beyond  our  own 
natural  and  national,  or  racial  environment?  If 
so  then  this  ambition  to  rule  will  react  upon  itself 
and  the  world  beyond  will  come  back  on  the  cen¬ 
tral  government  and,  with  growing  numbers,  as¬ 
sert  its  claim  to  share  in  that  world-rule  and  ulti¬ 
mately  overwhelm  the  original  asserting  and  gov¬ 
erning  center,  and  the  record  shows  that  less  than 
a  majority  can  bring  this  to  pass. 

History  illustrates  that  over  and  over  again. 
Many  great  nationalities  brought  on  their  own 
downfall  through  the  ambition  and  effort  to 
spread  their  government  and  power  over  the  out¬ 
lying  peoples  of  the  world.  In  turn  these  rising 
peoples  swept  over  the  mighty  center,  and 
swamped  and  destroyed  its  dominance.  That  was 
the  result  of  Rome’s  world-government  schemes, 

213 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and  the  barbarian  and  undeveloped  peoples  over¬ 
whelmed  and  crushed  the  well-nigh  omnipotent 
Roman  power. 

World  rule  has  always  imperiled  the  actual  or 
would-be  world-ruler.  Abandoning  the  fact  or 
the  attempt  is  a  means  of  salvation,  and  the  sooner 
the  better. 

One  great  colonial  empire  of  modern  times  has 
attempted  to  avoid,  and,  so  far,  has  avoided  dis¬ 
aster,  by  planting  and  developing  civilization 
here  and  there  in  the  world,  and  then  letting  the 
colonies  govern  themselves  almost  to  the  parting 
point.  In  this  Great  Britain  has  shown  her  wis¬ 
dom,  for,  by  her  concession  of  self-government, 
she  has  bound  these  distant  and  separate  portions 
of  the  world  by  sympathetic  and  loving  bonds 
more  tenacious  and  eternal  than  could  result 
from  governing  power  backed  by  strong  armies 
and  omnipresent  navies.  She  learned  her  lesson 
in  time. 

That  method  has  its  lessons  for  the  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  world  as  well  as  for  secular  systems. 

It  is  not  safe  for  the  church  to  imitate  the  ex¬ 
ample,  and  to  copy  the  careers  of  the  old  im¬ 
perial  governments.  The  Roman  church  copied 
imperial  Rome,  and  though  there  was  a  growth 
of  governmental  power,  there  was  also  repeated 
disaster,  and  the  weakening  and  loss  of  the  best 
and  vital  things  for  which  the  Church  of  Christ 
stood. 

We  do  not  want  others  to  govern  us  and  we 
should  not  wish  to  govern  others.  If  it  be  said 

214 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


that  our  government  would  be  a  benefit  to  other 
peoples,  other  people  might  retort  that  if  we  were 
under  their  authority  it  would  be  better  for  us. 
As  to  the  question  of  benefit  we  can  easily  find 
ways  of  being  beneficial  to  others  without  our 
ruling  them  or  having  them  in  any  degree  rule 
over  us. 

There  cannot  be  a  world  church  with  a  good 
and  wholesome  world  government. 

In  the  first  place  a  world  church  with  a  world 
government  would  embrace  people  of  different 
nationalities  and  different  races,  and,  therefore, 
it  must  have  a  mixed  government  with  diverse 
and  more  or  less  antagonistic  elements,  and  the 
wider  it  spreads  and  the  more  embracing  it  be¬ 
comes,  the  less  homogeneous  it  is  likely  to  be.  That 
means  such  a  world  government  would  contain 
the  seeds  of  its  own  dissolution,  perhaps  after 
violent  eruptions,  unless  there  was  a  system  of 
progressive  suppression  that  was  calculated  to 
prevent  a  free  and  legitimate  expression  of  senti¬ 
ment  on  the  part  of  the  ministers  and  members 
who  are  governed.  Even  then  the  repression 
might  lose  its  effectiveness,  for,  though  it  might 
seem  efficient  up  to  a  certain  point,  yet,  beyond 
that,  the  natural  result  would  be  an  explosion. 

This  repression  may  take  on  a  variety  of  forms, 
one  of  which,  probably,  would  be  the  limitation  of 
representation  on  the  part  of  the  dependencies 
who  are  governed,  and  the  deprivation  of  any  right 
to  share  in  the  exercise  of  govermnent. 

In  the  very  nature  of  things  an  ecumenical 

215 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


church  calls  for  a  reduced  and  reducing  propor¬ 
tionate  representation  at  the  point  where  the  seat 
of  government  is  located.  For  this  there  may  he 
physical  and  economical,  as  well  as  imperial  rea¬ 
sons,  for,  with  a  world-wide  ecclesiastical  govern¬ 
ment,  it  is  found  that  the  world  is  too  large  geo¬ 
graphically,  and  too  limited  financially,  as  well  as 
in  time,  to  sustain  a  fairly  generous,  and  equally 
proportionate  representation  from  distant  parts, 
and,  therefore,  as  the  extent  of  the  church  con¬ 
tinues  to  grow,  that  restrictive  process  must  in¬ 
creasingly  restrict  representation  or  the  govern¬ 
ment  must  collapse  or  break  into  fragments  of  its 
own  weight.  It  is  further  to  be  remembered  that 
this  reduction  of  proportionate  representation 
would  affect  those  near  the  center  as  well  as  those 
at  a  distance. 

World  governments  have  always  deemed  it 
necessary  not  to  have  an  equally  representative 
recognition  for  all  the  regions  of  the  earth,  but, 
while  they  governed  far  and  wide,  to  have  a 
strongly  centralized  government  at  the  center.  So 
it  does  not  tend  to  an  equalized  or  equitable 
democracy. 

Indeed  a  world  government  cannot  be  a  truly 
democratic  and  equitably  representative  govern¬ 
ment,  and  this  is  true  whether  it  is  a  secular  or  an 
ecclesiastical  world  pov^er.  In  either  case  it  tends 
to  a  limited  and  reduced  representation,  and  as 
the  concentration  and  condensation  goes  on,  it 
tends  to  a  despotism,  in  an  ecclesiasticism,  as  well 
as  in  a  civil  government,  and  its  full  fruition  is  a 

216 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


centralization  symbolized  by  a  czardom  or  a 
papacy,  and  this  would  be  the  case  to-day,  though, 
perhaps,  slightly  modified  by  peculiar  circum¬ 
stances. 

A  world  secular  government  would  be  a  men¬ 
ace  to  the  world,  and  a  world  church  would  for 
the  same  reason  be  a  danger  to  the  world,  and  to 
itself,  including  those  it  governs.  Both  are  un¬ 
democratic  and  suppressive  of  local  liberty. 

These  principles  apply  to  a  modern  as  well  as  a 
medieval  ecclesiasticism,  and  would  apply  to  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  proportion  to  any 
attempt  to  become  a  world  church  with  a  world 
government. 

If  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  to  at¬ 
tempt  to  be  a  world  church,  and,  as  such,  develop 
a  world  government,  and  rule  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  in  the  distant  parts  of  the  earth,  there  would 
inevitably  be  a  reaction  in  the  church  itself  that 
would  modifv  its  own  character  and  cause  an  ee- 

%i 

clesiastical  and  spiritual  deterioration. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  home  church  tried  to 
be  a  world  church  and  at  the  same  time  tried  to 
preserve  the  democratic  idea  by  giving  to  the  for¬ 
eign  mission  fields  representation  equal  to  what 
it  has  in  the  home  field,  its  very  liberality  would 
bring  an  internal  modification,  for  the  growing 
power  of  the  representation  of  its  miscellaneous 
peoples  from  abroad,  though  they  might  not  in¬ 
tend  it,  would  sooner  or  later  change  the  home 
church  very  materially  and  make  it  less  American 
and  less  like  the  original  church. 

217 


I 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


A  little  thought  will  show  that  under  such  con¬ 
ditions,  with  voting  power  in  the  hands  of  dele¬ 
gates,  differently  educated,  and  different  in  so 
many  ways,  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
could  not  continue  to  be  the  American  Church  it 
has  been. 

However  these  things  may  be,  there  is  no  divine 
call  for  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  rule 
the  religious  world,  and  there  is  no  divine  com¬ 
mand  that  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
should  be  ruled  in  whole  or  part  by  foreign 
missions  which  it  has  planted  and  to  which  it  has 
given  its  money  and  its  men  with  the  most  lavish 
liberality.  Helping  missions  abroad  is  one  thing, 
out  a  world  government  by  all  under  all  is  a  very 
different  thing,  and  being  governed  by  the  world 
is  still  different. 

In  foreign  countries,  as  has  been  seen,  there  are 
many  assertions  of  race  consciousness,  and  posi¬ 
tive  uprisings  from  national  instinct  and  ambi¬ 
tion,  and  corresponding  conditions  are  found  in 
the  eeclesiastieisms  of  foreign  mission  fields. 
This  is  not  limited  to  one  form  of  church  work, 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  foreign  missions  are 
not  exempt.  Administrators  have  seen  it  and  at 
times  have  been  greatly  concerned  to  judiciously 
find  a  way  to  prevent  the  logical  outcome. 

There  have  been  commotions  in  foreign  mission 
fields,  sometimes  sporadic  and  limited  to  a  few, 
and  sometimes  more  general,  but  not  universal. 
Now  and  then  these  uprisings  have  subsided,  but 
in  instances  they  have  resulted  in  local  and  not 

218 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


inconsiderable  defections.  Nevertheless  small  as 
some  are,  they  are  symptomatic  and  indicate  a 
spirit  of  unrest  more  or  less  deeply  seated  in  ra¬ 
cial  and  national  instincts,  and  the  desire  for  self- 
government.  Even  at  the  present  time  there  are 
movements  toward  affiliation,  or  combination,  be¬ 
tween  mission  bodies,  and  individuals  advocate  a 
fusion  into  a  sort  of  national  Christianity. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  these  manifesta¬ 
tions  have  been  contributed  to  and  encouraged  by 
some  of  our  missionary  workers  and  others,  who 
have  carried  the  idea  of  cooperation  with  other 
denominational  workers  to  such  an  extreme  as  to 
impress  the  natives  with  the  idea  that  it  is  not  so 
necessary  to  be  a  Methodist  Episcopalian  as  they 
once  thought,  and  that  they  could  do  just  as  well 
if  they  merged  with  a  body  carrying  the  name  of 
one  of  the  other  denominations,  or  to  create  a  new 
title,  a  new  polity,  and  a  new  creed. 

Indeed  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the  union  and 
other  federated  movements,  under  some  excellent 
men  in  connection  with  foreign  mission  work, 
have  helped  to  fade  out  the  distinctness  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  its  distinctive¬ 
ness,  in  the  minds  of  many  native  Christians,  so 
as  to  make  it  easy  to  discard  Methodist  Episco- 
palianism  and  substitute  something  else,  and  still 
call  themselves  Christians.  This  it  may  be  pos¬ 
sible  for  them  to  do,  but  it  is  not  the  duty  of 
Methodist  Episcopal  missionaries  and  workers  to 
weaken  the  hold  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  type 
of  Christianity,  but  it  is  their  duty  to  avoid 

'  219 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


methods  that  even  unintentionally  produce  such 
an  effect. 

Some  go  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  financial 
and  other  support  received  from  the  church  in  the 
United  States  is  what  holds  the  foreign  mission 
to  the  American  Church,  and  it  is  said  that  one 
administrator  said  to  certain  agitators  for  eccle¬ 
siastical  independence  in  a  certain  country:  “Well, 
you  cannot  go  off  from  the  mother  church  and 
retain  your  claim  on  the  financial  support  from 
the  home  church.  ’ ’ 

Doubtless  the  money  bond  has  strength  and 
helps  to  hold  the  younger  generation  in  the  for¬ 
eign  land  to  the  mother  church,  and  it  should  be 
expected  to  have  an  influence  in  this  direction,  but 
it  is  not  the  only  bond,  and,  if  the  money  were 
cut  off,  there  would  be  bonds  of  affection  that 
would  link  the  mother  and  her  offspring.  Yet  the 
spirit  that  makes  for  independence  might  prove 
strong  enough  to  result  in  some  form  of  separa¬ 
tion,  and  the  things  we  have  pointed  out  show  the 
possibilities  and  probabilities. 

The  child  with  an  immeasurable  love  for  the 
parent  nevertheless  leaves  the  parent’s  home  and 
starts  a  new  household,  and  humanity  is  better 
for  it.  The  colony  established  by  the  mother  coun¬ 
try  aspires  for  self-government  and  becomes  a 
new  nation,  and  the  world  is  the  better  for  that. 
So  the  mission  planted  by  the  mother  church  in  a 
distant  country  may  manage  its  own  affairs,  and 
by  its  independence  become  a  new  center  for  the 
conversion  of  the  world. 

220 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Various  reasons  exist  for  considering  the  sub¬ 
ject  at  the  present  moment.  Various  forces  are 
at  work  and  those  in  close  touch  have  felt  the 
power  of  the  forces  now  coming  into  action. 

Since  writing  the  above  we  have  come  across  an 
article  written  by  the  Reverend  George  A.  Miller, 
who  has  had  considerable  experience  in  a  mission 
field.  His  article  shows  that  he  recognizes  the 
very  conditions  we  have  mentioned,  and  in  it  he 
says : 

“  Suppose  that  we  of  the  United  States  were 
asked  to  submit  to  foreign  control  in  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  our  church  affairs!  How  long  would 
we  endure  it!  Is  not  just  this  charge  of  un- Ameri¬ 
canism  the  great  outcry  against  the  ecclesiastical 
monopoly  with  headquarters  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tiber!  And  our  own  dominance  of  the  church  in 
mission  lands  is  more  intimate  and  evident  than 
that  of  the  Pope  over  the  American  Catholic 
Church.  We  send  foreigners  to  control  every  mis¬ 
sion  field ;  we  consult  with  the  natives,  but  the  de¬ 
cision  is  ours.  We  handle  the  money  and  pay  the 
men  and  decide  the  issues  and  make  the  appoint¬ 
ments,  and  once  in  four  years  we  get  together  in 
General  Conference  assembled  and  decide  what  is 
good  for  the  rest  of  the  world.  To  be  sure,  there 
are  delegates  present  from  all  lands,  but  they  are 
deaf  and  dumb  delegates  for  the  most  part,  caught 
in  a  vast  legislative  machine  that  finds  them  often 
powerless  to  speak  or  act.”1 

Doubtless  the  writer  of  the  paragraph  just 

1 Pacific  Christian  Advocate ,  August  9,  1922. 

221 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


quoted  has  breathed  the  mission  atmosphere,  and 
heard  echoes  from  within,  as  well  as  felt  the  spirit 
of  unrest,  and  because  of  that  we  give  the  quota¬ 
tion.  Some  things,  however,  which  he  says  per¬ 
haps  need  a  little  qualification. 

It  is  true  the  home  church  exercises  some  au¬ 
thority.  It  could  not  he  otherwise.  It  furnishes 
the  money  and  has  a  right  to  see  that  it  is  properly 
expended.  So  it  sends  and  supports  the  mission¬ 
aries  and  must  hold  them  to  their  task  and  must 
protect  them  while  they  perform  it.  So  for  a 
time  the  parent  provides  for  and  governs  the 
child,  but  there  comes  a  time  when  the  child  wants 
to  support  himself  and  wants  freedom  to  make  his 
own  way  in  the  world.  Something  of  the  same 
kind  may  be  expected  in  the  case  of  the  develop¬ 
ing  foreign  mission,  and  when  it  has  matured  so 
that  it  handles  its  own  affairs,  they  will  not  need 
to  go  as  “delegates”  and  be  “caught  in  a  vast 
legislative  machine  that  finds  them  often  power¬ 
less  to  speak  or  act.” 

The  Reverend  Mr.  Miller  says : 

“We  face  a  very  different  test  to-day.  Mis¬ 
sionary  administration  was  a  simple  art  when  all 
the  converts  were  humble  learners  and  the  mis¬ 
sionary  came  as  an  inspired  and  superior  teacher 
to  point  out  the  better  way.  There  were  difficul¬ 
ties,  even  as  there  are  problems  in  the  household 
of  small  children,  but  they  were  not  the  problems 
of  to-day.  The  mission  children  are  growing  up, 
and  like  all  families,  they  are  growing  faster  than 
their  parents  realize.  When  did  adolescence  ever 

222 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


appear  without  a  shock  of  surprise  to  the  elders? 
How  rapidly  the  demands  and  activities  of  these 
sturdy  youthful  churches  and  national  leaders  are 
becoming,  only  those  in  close  association  with  the 
spirit  of  mission  churches  can  understand.’ ’ 

Then  he  observes  : 

“  Before  we  become  impatient  and  begin  to  ac¬ 
cuse  these  healthy  offspring  of  the  American 
Church,  of  ingratitude  and  immaturity  of  judg¬ 
ment,  it  is  well  to  stop,  and  think  a  moment.  The 
gospel  is  native  to  every  land  and  clime.  As  soon 
as  it  takes  root,  the  inhabitants  of  Tientsien  or 
Timbuctoo  feel  that  this  gospel  in  a  peculiar  way 
belongs  racially  and  intrinsically  to  themselves 
and  that  being  their  own,  they  have  a  right  to  use 
its  privileges  and  propagate  its  promises  to  their 
fellowmen.  The  gospel  always  does  just  that.  It 
makes  patriots,  ecclesiastical  patriots,  and  it 
creates  independence  of  spirit  and  action  even 
within  the  mission  church  itself.  No  man  can  be¬ 
come  a  convert  to  a  free  gospel  and  an  open  Bible 
and  a  vital  experience  and  not  also  develop  a 
strong  spirit  of  independence  in  his  desire  to  ex¬ 
tend  these  blessings  to  the  rest  of  his  countrymen. 

“Now  this  is  the  most  normal  and  hopeful  re¬ 
sult  of  our  missionary  work.  It  is  time  to  thank 
God  and  take  courage.  These  restless  young 
churches  are  going  to  become  stalwart  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  giants.  That  they  are  not  always  wise  and 
prudent  is  but  natural,  even  though  it  be  decidedly 
perplexing  and  at  times  distressing.  No  way  has 
vet  been  devised  to  pass  from  childhood  to  man- 

223 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


hood  without  going*  through  this  heady,  flighty, 
energetic  period.’’1 

These  natural  and  national  forces  tend  to  assert 
themselves  more  and  more  as  racial  and  patriotic 
impulses  have  increased  freedom  of  action,  for 
Christianity  does  not  destroy  racial  segregation 
and  love  of  country.  These  are  things  inherent  in 
human  nature  and  are  not  destroyed,  but  more 
probably  are  intensified  by  religion. 

With  these  influences  fixed  in  human  nature  they 
are  sure  sooner  or  later  to  manifest  themselves  in 
the  Christian  mission  in  a  foreign  country,  so 
that  when  there  is  a  large  Christian  population  in 
sueh  a  land,  it  is  sure  to  demand  and  develop  a 
Christian  Church  of  the  nation,  and  the  organi¬ 
zation  with  the  racial  and  national  impulses  will 
tend  toward  an  independent  church  within 
national  lines. 

It  would  seem  therefore  that  the  mother  church 
should  look  forward  to  the  possibility,  probability, 
and  even  certainty,  that  ultimately  the  foreign 
mission  will  want  a  church  not  foreign  to  its  own 
land  but  indigenous  and  self-governing.  It  is 
decreed  by  race  and  patriotic  feeling. 

There  is  another  fact,  perhaps  more  remote,  but 
no  less  real,  which  arises  from  international  re¬ 
lations,  and  the  fact  that  the  foreign  mission  is 
under  another  political  government.  If  the  con¬ 
verts  belong  to  a  church  of  a  foreign  land  then 


Uteverend  G.  A.  Miller,  Pacific  Christian  Advocate ,  August 
9,  1922. 


224 


AND  ITS  FOEEIGN  MISSIONS 


they  may  be  the  innocent  sufferers  from  political 
complications  between  their  own  government  and 
the  government  where  their  church  is  located. 

We  have  no  assurance,  for  example,  that  there 
will  not  be  more  wars,  and  many  of  them.  The 
United  States  as  a  nation  may  be  involved  in  war 
through  misunderstandings,  rivalries,  and  antag¬ 
onisms  of  other  nations,  it  may  he  with  a  govern¬ 
ment  where  the  American  Church  has  a  foreign 
mission.  In  such  a  case  the  members  connected 
with  the  mission  of  the  American  Church  would 
be  under  suspicion  and  subject  to  persecution. 
Under  such  circumstances  they  would  be  in  a  bet¬ 
ter  position  if  they  had  their  own  church  within 
their  nation.  This  is  plainly  a  strong  reason  for 
letting  a  foreign  mission  have  its  own  govern¬ 
ment.  How  much  this  had  to  do  with  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  mission  in  Japan  we  will  not  at¬ 
tempt  to  say. 

This  does  not  mean  that  all  these  possibilities 
will  materialize  in  an  instant,  or  that  they  will 
come  suddenly  in  an  unexpected  moment,  or  that 
there  will  be  a  violent  convulsion,  but  the  tenden¬ 
cies,  which  may  not  mature  to-morrow,  or,  in  some 
instances,  for  a  long  time,  should  be  recognized, 
so  that  there  may  be  no  surprise  and  the  possi¬ 
bilities  should  be  looked  forward  to,  and  in  the 
modification  or  development  of  our  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  polity,  these  possibilities  and  probabilities 
should  be  kept  in  mind,  and,  if  the  native  or 
national  bodies  should  seek  independence  and 
separate  from  the  mother  church,  there  may  con- 

225 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


tinue  an  affiliation  and  affection  like  unto  that  of 
mother  and  daughter. 

Even  if  a  foreign  mission  became  a  self-govern¬ 
ing,  or  independent  ecclesiastical  body,  that  need 
not  sever  all  relationship  between  it  and  the  mother 
church. 

The  home  church  could  continue  to  do  very 
much  for  its  offspring,  and  in  various  ways  the 
new  organization  could  still  keep  up  its  affiliation. 

The  mother  church  could  still  aid  the  mission 
with  contributions  of  missionary  money,  reserv¬ 
ing  to  itself  the  right  to  say  on  what  conditions 
the  missionary  money  shall  be  given,  and  the  proc¬ 
ess  by  which  it  shall  be  sent  to  them,  and  when, 
where,  to  whom  and  for  what,  and  how,  it  shall 
be  disbursed,  and,  to  preserve  its  Methodism,  con¬ 
dition  the  support  on  conformity  to  the  doctrinal 
teachings  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  so  as  to  the  ecclesiastical  polity. 

The  home  church  in  the  home  land  would  con¬ 
tinue  to  have  a  deep  interest  in  what  she  had 
planted,  protected,  and  nourished  in  the  foreign 
country,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  former  mis¬ 
sion  would  remember  with  gratitude  its  great  in¬ 
debtedness  to  the  mother  church,  and  overflowing 
love  would  continue  to  flow  from  one  to  the  other. 

Surely  from  all  points  of  view,  it  must  seem 
better  that  in  foreign  lands,  there  should  grow  up 
independent  local  churches,  each  within  the 
bounds  of  the  race  or  nation,  and  that  the  foreign 
mission  field  should  thus  mature  until  it  is  able  to 
administer  its  own  affairs,  rather  than  they 

226 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


should  go  on  forever  with  a  diversity  of  taste,  and 
with  antagonistic  political  and  racial  views,  which 
make  not  for  peace  in  the  central  government  or 
their  native  land. 

It  is  reasonable  to  say  that  it  will  be  wise  eccle¬ 
siastical  statesmanship  to  expect  that  outcome, 
and  to  judiciously  prepare  for  it,  by  teaching  and 
training  the  ministers  and  members  of  to-day  to 
develop  themselves,  and  carry  on  the  work,  so  that 
to-morrow,  or  whenever  the  time  comes  they  will 
be  a  true  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  their 
native  environments  and  within  their  racial  and 
national  peculiarities. 

The  seed  has  been  sown  and  harvests  have  been 
gathered,  and  a  right  evolution  may  be  directed. 
To  change  the  figure,  the  leaven  has  been  working 
in  the  meal,  and,  in  due  time  all  will  be  leavened. 

What  was  done  in  the  cases  of  Canada  and 
Japan  may  teach  at  least  something,  but  now  the 
Church,  with  greater  experience,  vaster  resources, 
and,  we  may  say,  with  greater  skill,  may  gradually, 
and  rapidly,  do  better  work  for  the  home  church  at 
the  center,  and  at  the  same  time,  out  in  the  world, 
meet  the  peculiar  needs  of  different  lands  by  mak¬ 
ing  churches  for  the  locality  and  the  people 
thereof,  and  these  self-governing  bodies  will  look 
with  gratitude  to  the  central  or  mother  church, 
and  the  mother  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  will  still  love  and  help  all,  as  she  is  able, 
somewhat  as  she  now  helps  Japan.  Then  there 
will  be  a  great  Methodist  Episcopal  galaxy  blaz¬ 
ing  in  the  ecclesiastical  firmament,  each  orb  swing- 

227 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ing  in  its  own  orbit  and  all  blessing  the  whole 
earth. 

That  independence  may  be  the  destiny  of  the 
foreign  mission  does  not  mean  that  all  the  mis¬ 
sions  in  foreign  lands  will  be  set  off,  or  withdraw 
at  the  same  moment.  The  ripening  moment  is  not 
likely  to  come  to  all  at  the  same  time,  and  the 
church  might  still  have  some  to  care  for  after 
others  had  attained  self-government. 

So  as  some  became  independent  it  would  be  pos¬ 
sible  for  the  church  to  establish  another  foreign 
mission  somewhere  else,  and  this  losing  and  gain¬ 
ing  of  missions  might  continue  many  years,  for 
all  the  heathen  and  Mohammedan  world  is  not 
likely  to  be  Christianized  for  a  very  long  time. 

It,  therefore,  follows  that  granting  independ¬ 
ence  to  foreign  missions,  or  their  assuming  it, 
does  not  carry  with  it  the  abandonment  of  the 
Foreign  Missionary  Society,  or  the  loss  of  the  mis¬ 
sionary’s  vocation.  That  is  not  conceivable  for 
very  many  generations  or  ever.  As  long  as  the 
world  is  not  entirely  converted  there  will  be  work 
for  the  missionary  and  the  body  that  sends  and 
supports  him. 

In  the  future,  however,  it  should  be  clearly  un¬ 
derstood  that  the  starting  and  supporting  of  a 
mission  in  a  foreign  land  does  not  mean  an  at¬ 
tempt  to  make  a  world-wide  ecelesiasticism  or  a 
world  church,  but  to  spread  Christianity  as  de¬ 
fined  by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
aim,  therefore,  is  not  to  build  up  so  many  integral 
parts  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 

228 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


United  States  of  America,  but  to  plant  Christian¬ 
ity  and  organize  a  church  which  will  be  a  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  in  its  own  country. 

In  the  case  of  the  mission  field  becoming  an  or¬ 
ganized  church  according  to  the  system  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  logically  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishop  would  remain  with  his  field,  but, 
if  by  mistake  or  accident,  or  in  any  other  way,  a 
General  Superintendent  Bishop  chanced  to  be  in 
a  foreign  land,  he,  being  a  Bishop  for  the  United 
States,  would  fall  back  on  the  church  in  America, 
which  must  provide  for  him.  This  shows  the  con¬ 
tinuing  value  of  the  Missionary  Bishop  in  the 
foreign  field. 


f 


229 


CHAPTER  X 
IN  THE  MEANTIME 


t 


CHAPTER  X 


IN  THE  MEANTIME 

In  the  meantime  it  may  be  found  judicious,  in 
view  of  these  tendencies  and  probabilities,  and 
the  proper  development  of  the  work  in  the  for¬ 
eign  fields  to  modify  the  mechanism  in  the  for¬ 
eign  field  so  as  to  increase  its  self-government,  so 
that  its  polity  will  be  fairly  complete  in  itself. 

In  course  of  years,  as  the  work  has  spread,  the 
Conferences  increased,  and  the  higher  adminis¬ 
trators  have  become  more  numerous,  in  the  larger 
fields,  there  has  been  a  demand  for  a  central  body 
in  the  foreign  mission  field  with  increased,  and 
increasing  powers,  and  in  the  law  there  has  been 
granted  a  Central  Conference,  which  is  a  good 
deal  more  than  the  Annual  Conference. 

The  first  law  in  regard  to  a  “  Central  Mission 
Conference”  appears  in  the  book  of  Discipline  for 
1892,  in  a  chapter  under  that  heading. 

In  the  opening  paragraph  it  is  stated  that 
‘ 4  When  in  any  of  our  Foreign  Mission  Fields 
there  is  more  than  one  Annual  Conference  or  Mis¬ 
sion,  it  shall  be  lawful,  by  order  of  the  General 
Conference,  to  organize  a  Central  Conference,  to 
be  composed  either  of  all  the  members  of  those 
Annual  Conferences  or  Missions,  or  of  representa¬ 
tives  from  the  same,  elected  according  to  such 
ratio  as  may  be  agreed  upon  between  the  constitu- 

233 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ent  parties,  who  may  also  provide  for  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  Laymen  to  such  Conference,  the  number  of 
Lay  Delegates  not  to  exceed  that  of  the  Clerical 
Delegates.”1 

It  was  provided  that  it  could  do  certain  things 
but  never  in  contravention  of  the  book  of  Discip¬ 
line,  or  Rules  of  the  General  Conference,”2  but 
the  specifications  were  few  and  simple.  The  out¬ 
line  simplicity  may  be  considered  as  continuing 
until  the  General  Conference  of  1920,  when  a  num¬ 
ber  of  new  provisions  of  a  radical  character  were 
introduced. 

In  1908  “The  Central  Conference  of  Southern 
Asia  is  authorized  to  fix  the  residences  of  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishops  for  Southern  Asia,”  was  inserted 
and  in  1916,  this  was  made  to  read :  ‘  ‘  The  Central 
Conference  of  Southern  Asia,  and  between  ses¬ 
sions  the  executive  Board  of  the  Central  Confer¬ 
ence  is  authorized  to  fix  the  residences  of  the  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishops  for  Southern  Asia,  and  to  assign 
the  Missionary  Bishops  to  such  residences,”  and 
this  remained  in  1920,  and  is  the  present  reading. 
All  of  which  shows  how  the  power  of  the  Central 
Mission  Conference  was  growing. 

The  most  striking  changes,  however,  were  made 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1920,  and  appear  in 
the  present  book  of  Discipline .3 

In  the  present  law  are  added  provisions  which 
mean  new  powers  given  to  the  Central  Mission 

1 Discipline ,  1892,  TT86,  p.  59. 

2 Discipline ,  1892,  1[86,  §3. 

discipline,  1920,  U95,  PP-  88-91. 

234 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Conference.  Thus:  “(3)  In  cooperation  and  col¬ 
laboration  with  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions 
and  the  Woman’s  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  it 
shall  supervise  the  missionary  work  and  policy 
of  the  indigenous  Church  and  provide  suitable 
organization  for  such  work.” 

Here  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  there  is  a  new 
descriptive  word  “indigenous,”  making  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  “the  indigenous  Church”  in  the 
foreign  mission  and  some  other  church  presum¬ 
ably  the  home  church  in  the  United  States. 

In  addition,  there  are  new  provisions  for  mak¬ 
ing  courses  of  study,  for  modifications  of  the 
Ritual,  for  establishing  marriage  rites  and  cere¬ 
monies,  and  for  qualifying  an  Article  of  Religion, 
all  of  which  start  many  questions. 

The  law  declares  that  any  foreign  mission  field, 
having  more  than  one  Annual  Conference  or  mis¬ 
sion,  may  organize  a  Central  Conference,  if  or¬ 
dered  by  the  General  Conference.  It  will  be  seen 
that  this  gives  the  Central  Mission  Conference 
very  considerable  power  so  that  it  may  consider 
and  direct  many  local  affairs,  and  it  will  also  be 
seen  that,  with  a  touch  or  two,  this  body  could  be 
made  a  regional  General  Conference,  and,  with 
its  bishops  now  at  hand,  the  field  could  be,  if  de¬ 
sired,  a  self-governing  church ;  and,  if  it  withdrew, 
or  was  set  off,  from  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  it  could  at  once  go  on  functioning  as  a 
local  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  within  its  own 
race  or  nation.  Petbaps  that  is  the  ultimate  in¬ 
tention. 


235 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


At  the  present  time  the  Discipline  provides  six 
Central  Conferences,  as  follows : 

1.  European  Central  Conference. 

2.  Eastern  Asia  Central  Conference. 

3.  Southern  Asia  Central  Conference. 

4.  The  Central  Conference  for  Southeastern 
Asia. 

5.  South  Africa  Central  Conference. 

6.  Central  Conference  for  Latin  America.1 
That  we  may  have  a  more  comprehensive  view 

of  the  component  parts  of  these  Central  Mission 
Conferences,  we  give  the  list  of  the  Conferences 
and  Missions  under  each  Central  Conference,  as 
follows : 

European  Central  Conference : 

1.  Austria  Mission  Conference. 

2.  Bulgaria  Mission  Conference. 

3.  Denmark  Annual  Conference. 

4.  Finland  Annual  Conference. 

5.  France  Mission  Conference. 

6.  Italy  Annual  Conference. 

7.  North  Germany  Annual  Conference. 

8.  Norway  Annual  Conference. 

9.  Russia  Mission. 

10.  South  Germany  Annual  Conference. 

11.  Sweden  Annual  Conference. 

12.  Switzerland  Annual  Conference. 

13.  North  Africa  Mission  Conference. 

14.  Hungary  Mission. 

15.  Baltic  Mission. 

16.  Jugo-Slavic  Mission  Conference, 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  H523,  pp.  402-404. 

23$ 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


17.  Spain  Mission. 

Eastern  Asia  Central  Conference : 

1.  Central  China  Annual  Conference. 

2.  Japan  Mission  Council. 

3.  Foochow  Annual  Conference. 

4.  Hinghua  Annual  Conference. 

5.  Kiangsi  Annual  Conference. 

6.  Korea  Annual  Conference. 

7.  North  China  Annual  Conference. 

8.  West  China  Annual  Conference. 

9.  Yenping  Annual  Conference. 

Southern  Asia  Central  Conference: 

1.  Bengal  Annual  Conference. 

2.  Bombay  Annual  Conference. 

3.  Burma  Mission  Conference. 

4.  Central  Provinces  Annual  Conference. 

5.  North  India  Annual  Conference. 

6.  Northwest  India  Annual  Conference. 

7.  South  India  Annual  Conference. 

The  Central  Conference  for  Southeastern  Asia 

1.  Malaysia  Annual  Conference. 

2.  Philippine  Islands  Annual  Conference. 

3.  The  Netherlands  India  Mission  Conference 
And  any  other  Annual  Conference,  Mission  Con 
ference,  or  Mission  which  may  be  organized. 

South  Africa  Central  Conference : 

1.  Angola  Mission  Conference. 

2.  Congo  Mission  Conference. 

3.  Rhodesia  Mission  Conference. 

4.  Southeast  Africa  Mission  Conference. 
Central  Conference  for  Latin  America : 

1.  Mexico  Annual  Conference. 

237 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


2.  Panama  Mission. 

3.  North  Andes  Mission  Conference. 

4.  Bolivia  Mission. 

5.  Chile  Annual  Conference. 

6.  Eastern  South  America  Annual  Conference. 
And  any  other  Annual  Conference,  Mission  Con¬ 
ference,  or  Mission  that  may  be  organized  in 
Latin-America.1 

Thus  the  foreign  mission  fields  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  are  divided  into  geographi¬ 
cal  sections  under  the  title  of  “  Central  Mission 
Conferences,”  and  a  glance  at  them  shows  the 
certainty  of  further  subdivision;  for  example, 
Europe  will  need  a  number  of  subdivisions,  and 
Latin-America  will  need  a  readjustment.  Prac¬ 
tically,  however,  these  divisions  into  Central  Con¬ 
ferences  cover  all  the  work  of  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  outside  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  these  divisions  mark  a  distinction 
between  the  home  church  in  the  United  States  and 
the  missions  in  the  foreign  world.  They  also  sug¬ 
gest  how  the  sections  of  the  foreign  work  may 
gain  self-government  and  ecclesiastical  independ¬ 
ence  and  then  carry  on  the  same  work. 

The  chapter  in  the  book  of  Discipline  on  the 
Central  Mission  Conference  is  exceedingly  sug¬ 
gestive  and  a  fine  sample  of  modern  ecclesiastical 
evolution.  It  suggests  the  tall  oak  rising  from 
the  tiny  acorn,  and  one’s  imagination  may  per¬ 
ceive  many  pleasing  possibilities  in  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  missions  in  heathen  lands  into  independ- 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  11523,  PP-  402-404. 

238 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ent  church  centers  of  new  Christian  empires,  but 
it  is  entirely  another  thing  now  found  in  the 
printed  chapter  on  the  Central  Conference. 

The  main  idea  in  a  document  may  be  all  right 
and  the  details  may  all  be  wrong,  and  sometimes 
though  one  approve  the  chief  purpose  he  must 
dissent  from  some  particulars.  It  is  even  so  as  to 
the  amendments  and  insertions  made  in  this  chap¬ 
ter  in  or  by  or  by  and  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1920. 

The  law  as  to  the  Central  Mission  Conference  is 
like  a  constitution  for  that  body.  It  declares  how 
the  Central  Mission  Conference  is  to  be  consti¬ 
tuted  and  who  shall  preside  over  it,  and  also  pre¬ 
scribes  its  powers,  but,  as  it  was  made  only  by 
the  General  Conference,  which  is  subordinate  to 
the  Constitution  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  law  of  the  said  Central  Conference 
does  not  have  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  said  Church.  It  is  subordinate  to  that  organic 
law,  and,  if  in  any  particular,  it  should  appear 
that  it  violates  the  Church  Constitution,  it  would, 
in  that  particular,  be  null  and  void,  just  as  would 
any  unconstitutional  act  of  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence. 

Some  things  in  the  provisions  for  the  Central 
Mission  Conferences  may  require  careful  recon¬ 
struction  so  that  there  may  be  no  mistaking  the 
meaning  and  that  there  may  be  no  conflict  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  system  to  be  main¬ 
tained  by  the  whole  church. 

The  provision  that  “  A  Central  Conference  shall 

239 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


have  power  to  make  such  adaptations  regarding 
membership,  special  advices,  worship,  and  the 
local  Ministry,  not  contrary  to  the  Discipline,  as 
the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  fields  concerned  call 
for.”1 

This  is  very  delicate  and  far-reaching.  Who  is 
to  decide  whether  the  foreign  acts  are  in  harmony 
with  the  general  Church  law?  Who  is  to  report 
any  departure?  This  might  be  more  exactly  ex¬ 
pressed,  for  there  might  be  serious  deviations  that 
some  might  not  think  were  departures  from  the 
law  and  yet  might  be  variations  from  the  true 
spirit  of  the  church  and  tend  to  destroy  its  unity. 

The  simple  fact  is  that  the  provision  and  per¬ 
mission  thus  intended  to  be  granted  to  the  Central 
Conference  4  Ho  make  such  adaptations  regarding 
membership,  special  advices,  worship,  and  the 
local  Ministry,  not  contrary  to  the  Discipline,  as 
the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  fields  concerned  call 
for,”  is  giving  these  distant  bodies  authority  to  do 
these  things,  and  making  them  the  judges  as  to 
need,  propriety,  and  legal  right,  and  this  vital 
matter  is  one  thing  the  General  Conference  has  no 
right  to  do. 

The  General  Conference  is  empowered  to  make 
“ rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church”  under 
certain  “limitations  and  restrictions,”2  but  it  has 
no  right  to  empower  anybody  else  to  make  “rules 
and  regulations  for  the  church,”  and  that,  practi¬ 
cally  without  “limitations  and  restrictions”  with- 

1 Discipline  1920,  H95,  §4,  (5). 

discipline,  1920,  p.  44;  Constitution.  Art.  x,  1f46. 

240 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


out  value  or  force.  Such  a  permission  is  most 
dangerous,  and  is  null  and  void.  With  such  lati¬ 
tude  as  this  the  unity  of  the  church  would  be 
utterly  destroyed. 

Think  of  allowing  a  Central  Mission  Conference 
to  make  any  rules  and  regulations  in  the  matter  of 
“worship”  it  desires  at  any  time,  with  power  to 
change  at  its  pleasure !  Think  of  allowing  a  Cen¬ 
tral  Conference  to  make  any  rules  and  regulations 
it  pleased  in  regard  to  “the  local  Ministry,”  or 
any  other  rank  in  the  ministry  of  the  church! 
Then  think  of  six  Central  Mission  Conferences 
doing  this,  each  with  its  own  variations,  and  that 
after  awhile  there  may  be  sixty  such  Central  Con¬ 
ferences!  What  uniformity  would  the  churches 
have?  How  many  errors  would  creep  in  and 
become  crystallized? 

In  addition  notice  the  risk  taken  in  the  matter 
of  church  membership.  What  is  more  vital  to  a 
church  organization  than  the  terms  of  member¬ 
ship?  Yet  here  it  is  left  to  the  Central  Confer¬ 
ence  in  a  foreign  mission  field,  and  so  to  the  six 
Central  Conferences,  and  to  the  sixty  that  may 
be.  Then  it  will  be  possible  to  have  in  the  for¬ 
eign  missions  as  many  different  and  contradic¬ 
tory  conditions  as  there  are  Central  Mission  Con¬ 
ferences.  Perhaps  the  loose  ideas  of  natives  who 
have  been  educated  amid  heathenism  may  have 
some  influence  in  modifying  the  terms.  We  are 
not  asserting  certainties  but  possibilities,  as  each 
Central  Conference,  for  the  center  of  the  church,* 
is  the  sole  judge.  At  least  it  looks  like  letting 

241 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


down  the  bars-,  and  running  dangerous  risks. 
Then  once  the  parties  are  admitted  to  member¬ 
ship  under  these  new  and  possibly  faulty  terms 
they  are  possible  members,  by  transfer  anywhere. 
You  might  as  well  let  every  individual  pastor  in 
the  church  admit  persons  into  his  church  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  notion,  or  his  judgment,  which  may  be 
bad. 

Some  things  are  vital  to  Methodism  and  cannot 
be  sacrificed  but  must  be  protected  by  the  entire 
church,  and  one  of  these  things  is  the  condition 
of  membership.  In  that  is  found  soundness  of 
doctrine,  loyalty  to  the  church  government,  and 
the  religious  life  of  the  individual.  One  may  say 
we  can  trust  the  parties  who  will  be  charged  with 
the  responsibility.  That  is  a  contingency  no  one 
knows,  but  the  General  Conference  has  no  right 
to  take  the  risk.  The  conditions  must  be  uniform 
and  must  be  determined  by  constitutional  prin¬ 
ciples. 

Again  we  read:  “A  Central  Conference  shall 
have  the  power  to  establish  detailed  rules,  rites, 
and  ceremonials  for  the  solemnization  of  mar¬ 
riage  not  contrary  to  the  statute  law  of  the  coun¬ 
try  or  countries  within  its  jurisdiction.,n 

This  is  extremely  loose.  There  is  no  reference 
to  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  or  general  Christianity.  One 
may  say  they  are  taken  for  granted,  but  nothing  is 
taken  for  granted  in  the  construction  of  laws.  This 
allows  the  Central  Conference  to  make  a  marriage 


1 Discipline ,  1920,  1f95,  §4,  (7). 

242 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ceremony  and  ‘ 4 detailed  rules  and  rites”  of  any 
sort,  so  that  they  are  ‘  ‘  not  contrary  to  the  statute 
law  of  the  country  or  countries  within  its  jurisdic¬ 
tion.”  If  the  countries  were  Mohammedan  or 
heathen,  the  ceremonials-  and  rules  could  conform 
to  the  teachings  under  these  governments.  If  they 
allowed  a  plurality  of  wives  the  Central  Confer¬ 
ence  could  provide  for  bigamy  or  worse.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  Conference  would  not  do  that,  but 
we  are  calling  attention  to  a  loosely  drawn  law. 
No  one  knows  what  might  be  done  after  awhile. 

The  provision1  “A  Central  Conference  is  author¬ 
ized  to  prepare  and  translate  into  the  vernacular 
concerned  simplified  and  adapted  forms  of  such 
parts  of  the  Ritual  as  may  be  deemed  necessary; 
to  extend  Article  xxiii  of  the  Articles  of  Religion 
to  recognize  the  government  or  the  governments 
of  countries  within  its  jurisdiction,”  is  more  than 
questionable.  The  Articles  of  Religion,  and  the 
expressions  in  the  Ritual  belong  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  whole  church,  and  this  liberty  might  result 
in  each  of  the  six  Central  Mission  Conferences 
having  different  and  contrary  Ritualistic  state¬ 
ments  even  as  to  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and 
the  Lord’s  Supper.  Any  one  who  knows  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
knows  that  it  prohibits  the  General  Conference 
from  changing  any  Article  of  Religion,  and  what 
the  General  Conference  cannot  do  itself  it  cannot 
delegate  to  another.  Yet  here  there  is  not  an  ap¬ 
peal,  or  even  a  reference,  to  the  mother  church. 


1 Discipline ,  1920,  ^[9^,  §4,  (4). 

243 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


When  we  remember  how,  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1916,  the  Ritual  of  the  church  was  changed 
the  church  may  well  be  alarmed  at  this  new  risk 
of  another  and  very  different  Ritual.  Here  we 
need  not  go  into  details,  though  it  may  be  told 
that  the  proposed  ritual  passed  through  a  Com¬ 
mission,  then  came  to  the  General  Conference  and 
was  by  it  referred  to  the  bishops  with  power. 
When  later  it  came  to  the  General  Conference  it 
was  adopted  without  debate  and  without  being 
read.  The  General  Conference  voted  on  it  without 
hearing  it  read  or  knowing  what  was  in  it. 

Articles  of  Religion,  Rituals,  constitutional 
matters  of  polity,  and  similar  things  are  of  vital 
importance  in  church  organization  and  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  life.  They  contain  the  doctrines  which  are  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  essential,  the  settled  forms  for  reli¬ 
gious  services  and  the  sacraments,  and  the  funda¬ 
mental  agreements  in  the  ecclesiastical  organism. 
In  brief,  these  things,  are  the  'symbols  of  the 
church,  and  symbols  that  indicate  the  differences 
between  churches.  If  they  are  not  sacred,  in  the 
strictest  sense,  they  come  very  close  to  it,  and  to 
treat  them  carelessly,  and  without,  or  in  disregard 
of  Constitutional  protection  is  a  form  of  sacrilege. 

To  give  a  section  of  a  country  or  a  part  of  an 
ecclesiastical  organization,  anywhere,  and  par¬ 
ticularly,  to  a  distant  point,  the  right  or  supposed 
right  to  construct  new  and  different  symbols  of 
this  character  which  must  mean  variation  from  the 
original  and  existing  central  organization,  must 
mean  the  making  of  a  new  and  different  church, 

244 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


though  the  process  may  be  called  irregular.  The 
new  symbols  with  new  doctrines,  new  religious 
forms,  and  a  new  polity,  at  least  in  part,  means  a 
body  different  from  the  mother  church,  practi¬ 
cally  set  off,  and,  actually  a  new  church. 

To  allow  a  section  of  the  church  to  make  such 
changes  is  not  within  the  province  of  any  sub¬ 
ordinate  body  in  the  church,  and  great  as  it  is,  the 
General  Conference  is  only  a  subordinate  body — . 
subordinate  to  the  Constitution  and  the  whole 
church  in  its  entirety.  The  General  Conference 
is  not  empowered  to  do  such  a  thing,  and,  if  the 
church  could  do  it  at  all,  it  could  not  be  done  by  a 
less  power  than  the  entire  church.  The  General 
Conference  could  not  start,  or  permit  the  actual 
starting  of  a  different  ecclesiasticism,  or  a  prac¬ 
tically  new  church,  while  still  permitting  it  to 
continue  to  be,  and  function,  as  a  part  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  If  the  section 
means  at  once  to  become  independent,  and  does 
become  independent,  then,  after  that,  the  new 
body  will  be  free  to  make  new  and  varying  sym¬ 
bols,  but  not  while  it  remains  as  a  part  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  To  give  the  section 
any  right  to  do  these  things  as  a  part  of  the  pres¬ 
ent  the  General  Conference  has  no  authority,  and, 
if  the  General  Conference  suggests,  or  attempts 
to  authorize  a  section  of  the  church  to  do  such 
things,  it  goes  beyond  its  province  and  its  action 
is  null  and  void. 

One  may  wonder  whether  this  is  a  sample  of 
the  loose  legislation  in  the  modern  General  Con- 

245 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


ference,  when  in  haste  there  is  little  comparison 
with  existing  legislation  or  ancient  principles.  If 
so,  care  is  needed  to  keep  in  mind  other  princi¬ 
ples  and  laws  as  well  as  the  immediate  proposition 
before  the  body.  Such  things  make  the  impres¬ 
sion  on  intelligent  minds  that  some  seem  to  be 
working  for  the  church’s  dissolution,  or  that  their 
recklessness  tends  in  that  direction. 

Still  another  provision  should  be  noted.  It 
reads:  “Subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Bishops, 
it  shall  have  power  to  arrange  Courses  of  Study, 
including  these  in  the  vernaculars,  for  its  Minis¬ 
try,  both  foreign  and  indigenous,  including  Local 
Preachers,  exhorters,  Bible  Women,  Deaconesses, 
teachers,  both  male  and  female,  and  all  other 
workers  whatsoever,  ordained  or  lay.”1 

This  is  certainly  quite  comprehensive.  It  covers 
courses  for  ministers,  not  only  in  the  vernacular 
tongues  of  the  mission  countries,  but  also  the 
languages  of  “its  Ministry,  both  foreign  and  in¬ 
digenous,”  so  that,  under  this  phrasing,  it  would 
seem  to  have  power  to  make  even  an  English 
course.  But  the  book  of  Discipline  also  provides 
for  the  whole  church  that  “There  shall  be  a  Per¬ 
manent  Commission  on  Courses  of  Study,”2  etc., 
and  this  Commission  prepares  courses  in  English 
and  in  other  languages.3  Does  this  mean  a  conflict 
of  courses,  and  a  conflict  of  authority? 

On  the  face  of  these  laws  it  seems  plain  that 

1 Discipline ,  1920,  1J95,  §4,  (2). 

2I bid.,  f210,  §1. 

*md.,  TO23-665. 


246 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


there  may  be  a  clash  between  the  Central  Mission 
Conferences  and  the  Commission,  and  the  Board 
of  Bishops,  and  that  the  courses  of  the  Central 
Conferences  might  conflict  with  the  courses  of 
study  approved  by  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

Under  the  law  of  1920  for  the  Central  Mission 
Conferences,  each  Central  Conference  can  make 
its  own  course  of  study,  and  there  would  be  as 
many  different  courses  as  there  are  Central  Con¬ 
ferences,  now  six,  and  in  the  future  more,  and 
these  courses  might  conflict  with  each  other  both 
in  textbooks  and  in  theological  teachings,  and  all 
of  them  might  conflict  with  the  courses  of  study 
prepared  by  the  regular  Commission  and  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

Under  these  conditions  it  might  happen  that 
the  courses  in  the  foreign  mission  fields  might  in 
some  or  many  particulars  be  un-Methodistic,  and 
result  in  indoctrinating  the  preachers  and  min¬ 
isters  in  the  missions  abroad  with  false  doctrinal 
teachings,  so  that,  while  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  was  spending  its 
money  to  spread  Methodistic  Christianity  in  for¬ 
eign  missions  the  courses  of  study  would  be  un¬ 
dermining  Methodism.  Of  course  it  may  be 
retorted  that  there  might  be  difficulties  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  other  course  at  home.  The  point, 
however,  is  with  the  possible  confusion  in  so  many 
courses,  and  the  great  distance  from  the  foreign 
fields,  and  no  reflection  is  intended  in  reference  to 
individuals. 

The  phrasing  of  the  law,  as  it  appears  to  give 

247 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


the  Central  Mission  Conferences  “  power  to  ar¬ 
range  Courses  of  Study,  including  those  in  the 
vernaculars,  for  its  Ministry,  both  foreign  and 
indigenous/’  may  be  held  to  cover  all  the  lan¬ 
guages  spoken  on  the  Mission  fields,  including  even 
the  English,  which  is  used  more  or  less  in  all  the 
foreign  fields. 

Even  outside  the  letter  of  the  law,  it  must  be 
conceded  to  be  a  fact  that,  unless  for  the  moment 
we  except  English,  all  the  languages  covered  by 
the  Courses  of  Study  or  covered  by  the  official  an¬ 
nouncement  of  study  courses  approved  come 
under  the  Central  Mission  Conferences,  so  that  if 
the  Central  Conferences  covered  their  own  lan¬ 
guages  for  their  own  candidates,  they  would  limit 
the  Commission  and  the  Board  of  Bishops,  as  re¬ 
lated  to  the  matter  merely  to  the  English  tongue, 
and  to  the  United  States  of  America,  for  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Mission  Conferences  cover  all  the  churches 
outside  these  United  States. 

Heretofore  it  has  been  the  rule  that  the  Board 
of  Bishops  fix  the  Courses  of  Study  for  the  entire 
church,  though  they  received  suggestions  from 
various  quarters.  Since  1916  they  must  approve 
the  Constitution  of  the  Courses  and  the  texts  pre¬ 
pared  and  presented  by  the  “  Commission  on 
Courses  of  Study.”  This  new  arrangement  of 
1920  raises  some  new  questions. 

One  may  point  out  that  the  law  says  :  “Subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  Bishops,  it  [the  Central 
Mission  Conference]  shall  have  the  power  to  ar¬ 
range  the  Courses  of  Study,”  etc.  That  is  carry- 

248 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ing  out  the  old  principle  of  giving  the  bishops  the 
final  word  as  to  the  fixed  studies  of  the  candidates 
for  the  ministry  and  for  orders. 

The  act  of  1920  says  “the  approval  of  the 
Bishops”  is  required.  What  bishops  are  in¬ 
tended  ?  Does  it  mean  the  bishops  in  the  territory 
of  the  Central  Mission?  It  does  not  say  so.  At 
the  time  this  new  law  was  made,  the  chapter  on 
“Central  Mission  Conferences”  recognized  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops  in  the  field  and  that  there  might 
be  the  presence  of  a  general  superintendent.  Thus 
we  read:  “A  General  Superintendent  or  a  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishop,  if  present,  shall  preside  over  a 
Central  Mission  Conference;  .  .  .  Missionary 
Bishops  have  equal  rights  and  privileges  with 
General  Superintendents  in  the  sessions  of  the 
Central  Mission  Conferences  with  which  they  are 
connected.  ’ 11  Does  it  mean  the  missionary  bishops  ? 
It  does  not  say  so.  Does  it  mean  the  general 
superintendents  who  may  chance  to  be  in  the  mis¬ 
sion  field?  It  does  not  say  so,  and  it  does  not 
say  both  of  these  classes. 

Does  “Subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Bishops” 
mean  those  who  are  outside  of  the  United 
States  and  in  the  foreign  mission  fields?  It 
does  not  say  so,  and  cannot  mean  so,  because 
the  reference  is  in  the  singular,  “a  Central  Mis¬ 
sion  Conference,”  and  each  Central  Conference 
is  to  prepare  its  own  “Courses  of  Study.”  If  it 
meant  any  of  these  things,  the  presumption  is 
that  the  law  would  have  distinctly  stated  the 


1 Discipline ,  1920,  1f95,  §3. 


249 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


exact  fact.  It  does  say  “Subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  Bishops.”  That  is  what  the  body  of 
bishops  was  called  for  many  generations.  They 
were  “The  Bishops”  and  were  more  recently 
called  “The  Board  of  Bishops”  and  the  law  has 
recognized  “The  Board  of  Bishops”  as  the  body 
to  pass  upon  courses  of  Study.1  Some  of  these 
propositions  for  the  Central  Mission  Conferences, 
particularly  the  acts  of  1920,  should  be  corrected, 
for  the  reasons  that  have  been  presented,  and 
then  carefully  studied  changes  may  be  introduced 
from  time  to  time. 

The  Central  Conference  may  prove  itself  to  be 
the  very  organism  that  is  needed,  both  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  home  church,  and  whenever  a  sepa¬ 
rate  organization  is  desired.  The  apparent  con¬ 
flicts  may  be  rectified  and  the  Central  Mission 
Conference  can  be  put  on  a  proper  basis  so  as  to 
preserve  the  good  that  now  exists,  and  at  the 
same  time  develop  a  wholesome  self-government 
according  to  the  tested  principles  of  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church. 

With  a  proper  adjustment,  giving  the  foreign 
mission  much  to  say  in  regard  to  its  own  affairs, 
there  would  not  be  the  same  need  to  send  foreign 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  possibly,  not  the  same  de¬ 
sire,  or  at  least  in  the  same  proportion,  and  the 
representation  might  be  reduced  according  to  the 
degree  of  power  granted  to  the  foreign  mission. 
It  may  be  remembered  that  the  United  States 

3 Discipline ,  1920,  210,  §2,  pp.  159,  160. 

250 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Congress  has  one  representative  from  a  territory. 
It  may  be  presumed  that  the  bishops  of  the  foreign 
field  would  be  at  the  General  Conference  anyhow. 

The  diminution  of  representation  would  save 
considerable  expense,  and  quiet  the  apprehension 
that  the  foreign  influence  would  have  unnecessary 
power  in  the  home  church  in  the  United  States. 
At  the  same  time  the  calling  forth  of  the  thought, 
the  self-reliance,  and  the  activities  of  the  foreign 
mission  would  tend  to  give  it  a  self-training  that 
would  make  for  a  progressive  and  sane  develop¬ 
ment  in  governmental  matters,  and  result  in  a 
self-supporting  church  displaying  the  spirit  of  in¬ 
telligent  and  Christian  self-determination. 

This  is  certainly  simpler  than  the  complicated 
and  impracticable  recommendations  as  to  “the 
Regional  Jurisdictions  in  foreign  countries”  in 
the  “Report  of  the  Commission  on  Unification” 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1920.1 

Such  an  intricate  scheme  failed,  as  it  ought  to 
fail,  for  it  was  not  a  natural  evolution  and  could 
not  be  a  genuine  union. 

General  Conference  Journal ,  1920,  pp.  1383-1402. 


251 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1920 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1920 

The  General  Conference  of  1920  did  three  very 
remarkable  things  in  regard  to  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  First 
it  elected  no  missionary  bishops,  although  it  was 
generally  conceded  that  the  episcopacy  in  the  for¬ 
eign  mission  fields  needed  strengthening. 

Second,  it  elected  an  unusually  large  number  of 
general  superintendent  bishops,  and  sent  a  very 
large  proportion  of  them  to  reside  in  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields  and  to  supervise  the  work  in  the  for¬ 
eign  fields  where  their  residences  were  fixed.  The 
unparalleled  number  of  elections  to  some  form  of 
episcopacy  was  a  shock  to  very  many  in  the 
church,  and  has  furnished  food  for  serious  reflec¬ 
tion  in  the  time  which  has  followed.  It  immensely 
increased  the  financial  burdens  of  the  Church  but 
has  not  given  any  adequate  increase  in  the  fields 
covered  by  bishops,  while  the  methods  of  election 
were  so  peculiar  as  to  be  widely  regarded  as  un¬ 
constitutional.  It  is  not  a  precedent  to  be  fol¬ 
lowed. 

Third,  by  election,  transformed  all  the  effective 
missionary  bishops  into  general  superintendents 
and  left  them  in  their  foreign  mission  fields. 

By  electing  and'  consecrating  the  missionary 
bishops  as  general  superintendents,  it  became  pos- 

255 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


sible  to  take  every  one  of  them  ont  of  the  foreign 
work  for  which  they  had  had  years  of  training, 
and  for  which  they  had  acquired  special  knowledge 
and  skill,  and  place  them  as  regular  or  ordinary 
bishops  in  the  United  States  of  America,  for  which 
they  had  no  such  preparation  or  special  aptitude. 
In  this  instance,  however,  this  translation  was  not 
effected,  and  the  missionary  bishops  who  had 
been  made  general  superintendents  were  left  in 
the  foreign  field  with  which  they  were  familiar, 
but  the  change  to  the  general  superintendency,  it 
is  understood,  makes  it  possible  for  any  General 
Conference  to  take  them  from  the  foreign  work 
and  assign  them  to  the  episcopal  work  in  the 
United  States,  and  practically  discard  their  mis¬ 
sionary  knowledge,  and  many  would  regard  this 
as  economic  waste.  At  the  same  time  the  trans¬ 
formation  into  general  superintendent  bishops 
added  nothing  to  their  fitness  for  the  foreign 
mission  work. 

All  the  missionary  bishops  for  India  were  se¬ 
lected  from  missionaries  on  the  field  and  so  had  a 
preparation  for  their  work  in  the  Missionary 
episcopacy,  but  it  was  a  very  different  thing  to 
take  a  large  number  of  ministers  who  had  not  had 
any  such  special  preliminary  training,  but  had 
been  brought  up  in  the  United  States,  and  place 
them  in  India  to  be  bishops  of  a  foreign  people. 

That  such  men  might  attain  success  may  be 
freely  admitted,  but  that  would  depend  on  indi¬ 
vidual  characteristics.  In  a  qualified  sense  they 
would  have  everything  to  learn,  but  the  mission- 

256 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ary,  and  possibly  the  native,  would  have  the  ad¬ 
vantage  at  first  and  for  a  long  time. 

The  bishops,  called  general  superintendents, 
who  were  selected  in  1920,  to  go  to,  and  reside  in 
certain  foreign  missions,  were  practically  Bent 
to  the  foreign  missions  to  do  such  work  as  the  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops  had  done,  or,  to  put  it  squarely, 
to  do  the  work  of  missionary  bishops,  and  which 
missionary  bishops  could  continue  to  do,  and  it 
was  pretty  distinctly,  and  even  emphatically, 
stated,  in  more  ways  than  one,  that  they  were  ex¬ 
pected  to  remain  in  the  foreign  fields  to  which  they 
were  assigned;  but  they  are  general  superintend¬ 
ents,  and  not  missionary  bishops,  and  a  new  situ¬ 
ation  has  at  once  developed. 

The  new  situation  is  first,  in  sending  such  a 
large  number  of  general  superintendents  to  for¬ 
eign  mission  fields ;  and,  second,  in  the  apparent 
effort  to  consider  the  sending  of  general  super¬ 
intendent  bishops  to  reside  in  foreign  fields  as  an 
established  policy.  In  recent  years  a  few  general 
superintendents  have  been  placed  in  foreign  lands 
but  that  might  have  been  regarded  as  exceptional 
and  because  of  an  emergency,  but  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1920  shows  an  intention 
somewhere  to  boldly  inaugurate  a  policy  which 
would  blot  out  all  distinction  between  the  home 
church  and  foreign  missions,  and  regard  general 
superintendent  bishops  as  for  both  and  inter¬ 
changeable.  That  is  what  is  meant  in  placing 
nearly  as  many  general  superintendents  abroad  as 
at  home.  The  time  has  come,  therefore,  that  the 

257 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHUECH 


church  should  awake  to  the  fact  that  to  place 
many  general  superintendents,  or  only  one  general 
superintendent  bishop  in  the  foreign  field  is  an 
unconstitutional  act,  as  the  Constitution  plainly 
shows,1  and  not  only  is  it  a  violation  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  but  also  destructive  of  vital  principles, 
and  injurious  to  the  church  in  many  ways.  Some 
who  favored  the  recent  move  may  not  have  seen 
its  illegality,  but  now  the  entire  church  should 
realize  the  fact  and  demand  a  change  of  policy. 

The  missionary  bishop  was  constitutionally 
limited  in  his  episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  foreign 
mission  for  which  he  was  elected.  Not  so,  however, 
in  the  case  of  a  general  superintendent.  He  was 
not  elected  for  any  limited  foreign  mission  field, 
and  could  not  legally  be  so  elected.  He  was  elected 
a  general  superintendent  for  “The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,”  and  “for  the  United  States  of 
America,”  as  the  history  and  the  law  declare, 
and,  under  the  law  of  the  church,  and,  particularly, 
the  Constitution  of  the  church,  they  could  not  be 
restricted  to  a  special  field,  or  limited  in  their 
functions.  They  never  were  elected  for  a  par¬ 
ticular  foreign  field,  or  for  any  foreign  mission 
field,  and,  it  seems  likely  that  some  do  not,  or  will 
not  expect  to  stay  in  any  mission  field  in  any  for¬ 
eign  land. 

Everybody  knows  that  a  general  superintend¬ 
ent  can  be  brought  back  to  the  United  States,  and 


1 Discipline ,  1920,  Constitution,  Art.  x,  §3. 

258 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

everybody  may  know  that  under  the  theory  that 
some  have  asserted  in  action  all  of  the  general 
superintendents  in  the  foreign  mission  fields  can 
be  brought  back  to  the  United  States  and  an  equal 
number  in  the  United  States  can  be  sent  to  replace 
them  in  foreign  countries,  but  the  whole  theory  is 
unconstitutional.  The  placing  of  general  super¬ 
intendents  outside  the  United  States  may  be 
forced  by  votes,  but  the  church  is  not  compelled, 
or  permitted,  to  do  so  by  the  Constitution;  and 
history,  law,  and  usage  show  that  the  general  su¬ 
perintendent’s  place  is  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  the  right  bishop  for  foreign  missions  is  the 
missionary  bishop.  The  Constitution  of  the  church 
plainly  says  so.  That  is  not  only  good  law  but  it 
is  sound  policy,  and  makes  for  economy  and 
effective  episcopal  administration. 

The  missionary  episcopacy  is  the  kind  of  epis¬ 
copacy  adapted  to  the  work  in  and  for  foreign 
mission  fields.  The  foreign  work,  with  its  pecu¬ 
liarities  of  race,  language,  and  usage,  requires  a 
peculiar  preparation,  and  a  permanence  of  ad¬ 
ministration  that  is  not  certainly  met  by  the  un¬ 
certain  general  superintendency  but  is  met  by  the 
missionary  episcopacy.  Then  the  foreign  field 
requires  a  man  particularly  adapted  to  each  par¬ 
ticular  field,  rather  than  the  general  qualities  ex¬ 
pected  in  the  home  field. 

We  must  recall  that  the  conditions  are  quite  dif¬ 
ferent  in  the  United  States,  where  there  is  a  prac¬ 
tically  homogeneous  people  with  one  language,  one 
government,  and  the  same  general  laws  and 

259 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


usages,  so  that  a  man  who  could  be  a  bishop  on 
the  New  England  coast  could  also  equally  well 
administer  on  the  Pacific  coast,  and  the  same 
bishop  who  could  administer  on  either  coast  could 
also  preside  in  the  interior.  But  it  could  not  be 
so  in  India  or  other  foreign  countries  that  could 
be  named. 

Some  superficial  thinkers  have  had  a  notion  that 
there  was  something  disparaging  about  the  mis¬ 
sionary  episcopacy,  but  that  is  not  the  thought  in 
other  denominations  who  have  the  equivalent 
office.  A  study  of  the  position,  and  a  comparison 
with  any  other  episcopacy  will  show  that  the  mis¬ 
sionary  episcopate  is  not  an  inferior  episcopacy, 
but  possibly  the  greatest  in  the  church — greatest 
because  of  the  demand  upon  the  individual  bishop, 
and  greatest  because  of  the  field  and  the  op¬ 
portunity  for  achievement.  Sometimes,  as  already 
shown,  the  field  covers  a  whole  continent,  and 
sometimes  it  covers  a  section  of  the  earth,  contain¬ 
ing  many  millions  of  inhabitants,  and,  in  in¬ 
stances,  three  or  four  times  the  population  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  as,  for  example,  India 
and  China.  Compared  with  these  fields,  the  little 
4 ‘ areas”  in  the  United  States  seem  small  indeed. 
Some  might  say  they  are  hardly  to  be  mentioned 
in  comparison  with  the  vast  extent  of  these  for¬ 
eign  territories  and  their  dense  populations — em¬ 
pires  in  themselves. 

The  missionary  bishop  is  the  great  empire 
builder  who  lays  the  foundations  for  future 
churches,  or  denominations,  which  with  their  pos- 

260 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


sibilities  are  beyond  present  imagination.  In  these 
things  there  is  more  than  enough  to  fire  a  bishop ’s 
sanctified  ambition,  and  to  prove  that  the  work 
of  a  missionary  bishop  is  not  subordinate  or  in¬ 
ferior.  But  it  is  different  and  requires  the  devo¬ 
tion  of  long  years  to  give  it  a  fair  chance  and  to 
secure  complete  success,  which  cannot  be  attained 
by  bishops  who  do  not  stay  but  quickly  depart 
and  flit  from  place  to  place. 

The  missionary  bishopric  has  been  a  great  suc¬ 
cess.  To  be  convinced  of  this  we  have  merely  to 
think  of  some  of  those  who  have  borne  the  title  of 
missionary  bishop.  We  remember  Bishop  Wil¬ 
liam  Taylor,  and  Bishop  Joseph  C.  Hartzell,  in 
Africa,  and  Bishop  James  M.  Thoburn  and  others 
in  India.  There  was  no  inferiority  in  these  in¬ 
stances.  They  were  called  missionary  bishops, 
but  they  were  bishops,  and  each  was  called  a 
bishop,  the  qualifying  word,  missionary,  which 
indicated  the  field,  being  reserved  for  legal  forms 
when  distinctions  were  needed. 

In  none  of  this,  however,  is  it  intended  to  say  or 
intimate  that  general  superintendents  could  not 
do,  or  have  not  done  good  work,  in  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  fields.  To  do  so  would  not  be  correct,  and  to 
say  they  had  not  done  good  work  would  be  a  gross 
injustice.  This,  however,  can  be  admitted  with¬ 
out  weakening  the  facts  and  legal  principles  which 
have  been  presented.  Exceptional  personal  quali¬ 
ties  must  be  recognized  and  reckoned  with. 

General  superintendents  have  done  monumental 
work  in  foreign  missions,  but  they  have  done  so 

261 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


excellently  well  in  tlie  foreign  field,  not  so  much 
because  they  were  general  superintendent  bishops, 
as  because  of  what  they  were  in  themselves,  and, 
individually,  they  would  have  done  as  well,  and, 
perhaps  better,  had  they  been  missionary  bishops. 
They  succeeded  in  spite  of  their  general  superin¬ 
tendency. 

The  good  work  of  Bishop  Bashford  and  Bishop 
Lewis  will  readily  be  recalled,  but,  though  elected 
general  superintendents,  they  made  their  success 
by  practically  transforming  themselves  into  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops  by  clinging  to  their  field  and  hav¬ 
ing  no  thought  of  being  transferred  to  the  United 
States  of  America  ;  and  the  same  could  be  said  of 
others.  But  what  might  have  been  the  result  if 
they  had  had  ten  years’  previous  preparation  on 
the  field? 

The  point  is  that  general  superintendents  are 
for  the  United  States  of  America,  and  missionary 
bishops  are  for  the  foreign  missions  of  the  church. 

But  one  may  say  “What  difference  does  it 
make?  Why  is  not  one  as  good  as  the  other?” 
The  answer  to  that  is,  first,  There  is  a  great  dif¬ 
ference,  because,  according  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  church,  the  laws,  and  the  usage,  the  general 
superintendents  are  “for  the  United  States,”  and 
the  missionary  bishops  are  for  the  foreign  mission 
fields;  and,  second,  because  the  missionary  bish¬ 
opric  is  better  adapted  to  the  foreign  work,  and 
the  general  super  intendency  is  better  adapted  to 
the  work  in  “the  United  States  of  America.” 

Again  one  may  say,  “But  the  General  Confer- 

262 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ence  lias  assigned  bishops  who  were  general  su¬ 
perintendents  to  foreign  mission  fields,”  but  a 
General  Conference  may  make  a  mistake,  and  a 
mistake  does  not  make  a  binding  precedent. 

Still  it  may  be  said  that  the  General  Conference 
is  the  law-making  power  in  the  church.  That  is 
true,  but  it  is  not  the  Constitution-making  body, 
and  the  Constitution  is  superior  to  the  General 
Conference.  The  law-making  body  of  the  nation 
is  the  Congress,  but  it  has  no  right  to  make  an 
unconstitutional  law. 

The  General  Conference  has  no  right  to  violate 
the  Constitution  of  the  church  either  intentionally 
or  unintentionally,  and,  in  either  case,  the  uncon¬ 
stitutional  act  would  be  null  and  void. 

But,  it  may  be  asked:  “Does  not  the  General 
Conference  have  interpretative  power?  Does  it 
not  interpret  the  Constitution?”  In  answer,  it 
may  be  said  that  up  to  a  certain  point  it  is  its  duty 
to  interpret  the  Constitution  in  order  to  keep  its 
own  acts  in  harmony  with  the  Constitution,  as 
Congress  does;  in  other  words,  to  interpret  its 
own  acts  in  the  effort  to  insure  their  constitution¬ 
ality,  but  a  General  Conference  has  no  right  to 
finally  and  absolutely  interpret  the  Constitution, 
for  that  power  belongs  to  the  whole  church  which 
makes,  and  can  make  or  unmake  the  Constitution. 
A  constitutional  government  implies  an  interpret¬ 
ing  authority  above  the  law-making  body. 

The  primary  constitution-making  power  existed 
in  the  body  of  the  ministry  in  the  Annual  Confer¬ 
ences  and  it  never  gave  up  its  power  over  the  Con- 

263 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


stitution.  It  delegated  certain  limited  powers  to 
the  delegated  General  Conference,  but  on  condi¬ 
tion  that  General  Conference  conform  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution.  If  it  does  not,  the  ministry  in  the  An¬ 
nual  Conferences  can  take  cognizance  of  the  fact 
and  call  the  General  Conference  to  account.  The 
records  also  show  that  the  Annual  Conferences 
have  been  appealed  to  as  against  an  act  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference,  and  they  pronounced  the  act  un¬ 
constitutional  and  the  next  succeeding  General 
Conference  accepted  the  decision  and  reversed 
itself.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Lay  Electoral  Con¬ 
ferences  should  now  be  associated  in  such  a 
process. 

So  it  is  that  the  General  Conference  cannot  vio¬ 
late  or  override  the  Constitution  by  a  mistake,  or 
by  its  deliberate  will ;  and,  if  it  has  made  a  mistake 
it  should  not  make  it  again,  but  should  at  once  cor¬ 
rect  its  error. 

Still  it  may  be  asked  whether  the  church  having 
established  missions  in  foreign  lands  that  does  not 
change  the  situation  so  as  to  permit  general  super¬ 
intendents  to  be  located  in  foreign  countries.  The 
answer  to  that  question  may  be  a  short  and  final 
one — No,  because  the  Constitution,  which  was 
against  it,  is  still  against  it,  and  that  the  only 
change  made  in  the  Article  of  the  Constitution 
was  to  say  that  another  kind  of  episcopacy  could 
be  sent  to  the  foreign  missions,  and,  therefore, 
was  the  right  kind  for  the  foreign  field. 

Because  foreign  missions  have  been  established 
by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  it  does  not 

264 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


follow  that  general  superintendent  bishops  can  be 
located  abroad.  They  were  made  for  the  United 
States,  were  in  the  “itinerant  general  superin¬ 
tendency,  and  could  not  be  localized  anywhere.” 

There  were  foreign  missions  long  ago,  and  they 
existed  a  long  time  before  any  kind  of  a  bishop 
was  located  in  a  foreign  country.  In  those  earlier 
days  of  foreign  missions  it  was  a  well-established 
legal  judgment  that  the  only  kind  of  bishops  the 
church  had,  namely,  general  superintendents, 
could  not  be  located  in  a  foreign  mission,  and  this 
was  so  well  settled,  and  universally  accepted,  that 
in  order  to  have  some  kind  of  bishop  resident  in  a 
foreign  mission,  the  church  had  to  change  its  Con¬ 
stitution,  which  it  did  by  adding  to  the  then  third 
Restrictive  Rule,  the  words:  “but  may  elect  a 
Missionary  Bishop  or  Superintendent  for  any  of 
our  foreign  Missions,  limiting  his  Episcopal  juris¬ 
diction  to  the  same  respectively.”1 

Thus  the  prohibition  as  to  the  general  superin¬ 
tendency  remained  as  it  had  been  from  the  begin¬ 
ning,  but  it  was  made  possible  to  put  missionary 
bishops,  and  no  other  kind  of  bishops,  in  foreign 
fields.  Acts  to  the  contrary  were  errors. 

The  Constitution  stands  the  same  to-day  and  no 
individual,  or  body,  can  legally  violate,  ignore,  or 
evade  that  provision  in  the  Constitution.  The 
only  proper  bishops  for  foreign  mission  fields  are 
missionary  bishops. 

What  is  more,  the  general  superintendents  are 


1 Discipline ,  1920,  Const.,’  Art.  x,  §3,  p.  45. 

265 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


peculiarly  protected  by  the  Constitution,  and,  es¬ 
pecially  by  “The  plan  of  our  itinerant  general 
superintendency ”  (Art.  x,  §3.),  and  that  plan 
gives  the  general  superintendents  the  right  and 
duty  of  arranging  their  own  work,  and  the  details 
do  not  belong  to  the  General  Conference,  but  to 
themselves.  The  Board  of  Bishops  decides  when 
and  where  the  general  superintendents  shall  hold 
Annual  Conferences. 

In  dealing  with  the  episcopacy  of  the  foreign 
mission  fields  the  fundamental  error  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  of  1920  was  in  sending  general 
superintendents  to  those  fields.  The  result  was 
that  every  such  field  in  the  church  was  supplied  by 
general  superintendent  bishops,  the  class  that 
legally  was  intended  for  the  United  States  of 
America.  So  it  happened  that  in  one  Continent, 
namely,  Asia,  the  bishops  discovered  that  they  all 
were  of  the  general  superintending  kind.  They 
found  themselves,  so  to  speak,  in  the  places  of  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops,  and  doing  the  work  of  mission¬ 
ary  bishops,  and  they  found  a  common,  and  pretty 
strong  sentiment  in  the  church,  and  coming  from 
the  General  Conference,  that  seemed  to  want  them 
to  be  restricted  with  limitations  somewhat  like 
those  of  the  missionary  episcopacy,  for  example, 
as  to  the  defined  field,  and  as  to  the  possible  tenure 
in  the  foreign  field.  Of  course  the  power  that 
sends  them  to  reside  abroad  can  keep  them  abroad 
until  the  end  of  their  lives,  or  shift  them  any¬ 
where,  but  sometimes  power  and  right  are  not  the 
same. 


266 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


The  reflections  of  the  new  general  superintend¬ 
ents  in  the  foreign  missions  seem  to  have  created 
a  condition  of  uncertainty,  and  apparently  created 
not  a  little  mental  confusion  which  revealed  itself 
in  a  series  of  formulated  inquiries.  They  seemed 
to  ask:  “What  are  we!  Why  are  we  general 
superintendents!  If  we  are  general  superintend¬ 
ents,  why  is  it  expected  that  we  are  to  be  limited 
like  missionary  bishops!  If  we  are  general 
superintendent  bishops,  are  we  not  to  act  as  if 
we  are!” 

They  did  not  phrase  their  questions  precisely  in 
this  way,  but  their  queries  seem  to  have  been 
‘  ‘  words  to  that  effect.  ’  ’ 

The  primary  question  they  might  have  asked 
could  have  been  in  this  form :  Why  are  we  here  at 
all!  If  we  are  general  superintendents,  why  are 
we  not  in  the  United  States  !  Or,  If  we  are  here, 
why  are  we  not  missionary  bishops! 

These  and  many  other  questions  might  have  oc¬ 
curred  to  them,  and  that  without  any  idea  of  dis¬ 
paraging  the  work  in  the  missions.  As  far  as  we 
have  seen,  they  make  no  complaint.  Their  work 
is  before  them  and  they  are  willing  to  take  it  up. 
Indeed,  they  have  taken  it  up.  But  they  find  them¬ 
selves  as  general  superintendents  and  they  seem 
to  want  to  find  out  how  they  should  adjust  them¬ 
selves. 

These  bishops  in  Asia,  feeling  the  incongruity 
of  their  present  position,  came  together  to  study 
the  situation,  and  they  prepared  a  communication 
which  they  addressed  4  ‘  to  the  Board  of  Bishops  at 

*>7 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


home,”  which  means  the  United  States  of 
America. 

In  this  communication  they  present  the  difficul¬ 
ties  which  they  think  need  solution,  and  the  prim¬ 
ary  difficulty  is  that  they  are  general  superintend¬ 
ents  located  in  foreign  mission  fields.  The  pre¬ 
sumption  is  that  if  they  were  missionary  bishops 
in  charge  of  foreign  work  they  would  have  none 
of  these  perplexities.  How  to  fit  in  there,  and  in 
the  general  system,  at  the  same  time,  seems  the 
problem.  If  they  were  assigned  to  the  United 
States,  the  adjustment  would  be  clear. 

The  cause  of  the  confusion  is  the  failure  to 
conform  to  the  constitutional  system  which  would 
place  the  general  superintendents  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  supply  the  foreign  fields 
with  missionary  bishops.  Whatever  the  inquiries 
of  the  bishops  in  Asia  may  mean  to  them,  or  what¬ 
ever  they  may  seem  to  mean  to  the  casual  reader, 
it  must  be  evident  that  the  situation  never  would 
have  arisen  if  missionary  bishops  had  been  placed 
in  the  foreign  fields,  or  if  general  superintendents 
had  not  been  sent  outside  the  United  States.  That 
is  the  cause  of  the  commotion,  and,  if  the  things 
done  could  now  be  reversed,  the  agitation  would 
cease,  and  there  would  be  a  great  calm,  because 
the  constitutional  and  natural  order  would  pre¬ 
vail. 

If  it  be  asked  what  should  be  done,  the  answer 
is  to  undo  what  has  been  done.  The  thing  to  do  is 
to  correct  the  error.  Readjust  so  as  to  create  the 
right  situation.  Restudy  and  obey  the  Constitu- 

268 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


tion  of  the  church.  Retain  the  general  superin¬ 
tendency  for  the  home  church  in  the  United  States 
and  elect  missionary  bishops  for  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  field. 

If  it  be  suggested  that  the  missionary  episco¬ 
pacy  has  been  destroyed,  as  some  seem  to  have 
imagined,  we  must  ask  what  destroyed  it,  and 
when  and  how  was  it  destroyed! 

If  it  is  said  it  was  destroyed  by  the  act  and  at¬ 
titude  of  the  General  Conference  of  1920,  then  it 
should  be  asked:  How  did  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1920  destroy  it!  and  any  attempt  to  show 
that  it  did  will  only  reveal  that  it  did  not  do  so  in 
any  sense. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  the  General  Conference 
transformed  the  remaining  effective  missionary 
bishops  into  general  superintendent  bishops,  and 
it  failed  to  elect  any  new  missionary  bishops,  and 
that  is  all,  but  all  that  did  not  destroy  the  mis¬ 
sionary  episcopacy. 

In  the  first  place,  retired  missionary  bishops 
still  live,  are  in  evidence,  and  are  recognized  and 
honored  by  the  church.  In  the  second  place,  the 
General  Conference  did  not  destroy  the  mission¬ 
ary  episcopacy,  and  could  not  have  done  so,  even 
if  it  had  tried. 

The  missionary  episcopacy  is  still  in  the  book  of 
Discipline  and  in  the  law  of  the  church,  and,  what 
is  more  important,  it  still  is  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  church,  which  is  beyond  the  power  of  the 
General  Conference  to  change  directly  or  in¬ 
directly. 


269 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


The  Constitution  still  distinctly  states  that  the 
missionary  bishop  is  the  proper  kind  of  bishop  to 
be  located  in  a  foreign  mission  field.  In  substance 
the  Constitution  says  the  general  superintendemw 
was  to  be  preserved  as  it  had  been  from  the  early 
years  of  the  church,  but  that  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  after  the  amendment  of  1856,  may  elect  “a 
missionary  bishop  or  superintendent  for  any  of 
our  foreign  missions,  limiting  his  episcopal  juris¬ 
diction  to  the  same  respectively’ ’  (Constitution, 
Art.  x,  §3),  and  it  does  not  say  that  it  can  elect  any 
other  kind  of  bishop  for,  or  locate  any  other  kind 
of  bishop  in,  a  foreign  mission. 

There  it  is,  still  in  the  Constitution,  unde¬ 
stroyed,  and,  as  far  as  the  constitutional  law  goes, 
not  devitalized,  and  under  it,  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  can  and  ought  to  elect  missionary  bishops 
for  foreign  mission  fields,  and  is  in  duty  bound  to 
send  missionary  bishops  to  foreign  fields  if  any 
bishops  go  at  all. 

The  act  of  one  General  Conference  does  not 
forever  bind  all  subsequent  General  Conferences, 
and  other  General  Conferences  are  to  follow.  The 
General  Conference  of  1920  has  gone,  and  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  delegates  will  never  convene 
again. 

Another  thing  that  the  General  Conference  of 
1920  did  was  the  so-called  election  of  a  new  kind 
of  general  superintendency  which  was  not  au¬ 
thorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  and 
which  was  not  according  to  a  regular  constitu¬ 
tional  election.  This  was  in  electing  two  so-called 

270 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Negro  General  Superintendents — a  thing  unknown 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  Church. 

If  they  were  elected  anything  they  were  not 
elected  general  superintendents.  In  the  ballot  they 
were  called  Negro  General  Superintendents,  and 
that  was  a  thing  unknown  to  and  in  violation  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  church.  It  was  an  illegal 
attempt  to  make  a  new  general  superintendency 
which  had  no  standing  in  the  constitutional  law 
of  the  denomination.  To  attempt  to  class  them  as 
general  superintendents  when  they  are  not  is  a 
great  wrong  to  the  church  and  a  wrong  to  every¬ 
body  in  it,  including  the  parties  themselves. 


i 


271 


CHAPTER  XII 
EXPERT  EVIDENCE 


t 


CHAPTER  XII 


EXPERT  EVIDENCE 

On  this  subject  one  might  reason  very  satisfac¬ 
torily  from  his  general  knowledge,  or  the  results 
of  special  study,  and  many  might  ask  nothing 
more,  but  when  right  deductions  are  sustained  by 
the  testimony  of  persons  who  have  a  direct  and 
intimate  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  a  personal 
experience  of  matters  to  which  reference  is  made, 
the  conclusions  are  not  only  strengthened,  but  be¬ 
come  practically  overwhelming.  Many  might  be 
called  upon  to  testify,  but  the  force  depends  not 
upon  the  number  of  witnesses,  but  upon  the  qual¬ 
ity  of  the  evidence. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  pages  it  was  our 
good  fortune  to  read  the  opinion  of  one  who  can 
justly  claim  to  give  expert  testimony,  for  he 
knows  the  United  States  of  America,  and  has 
lived  and  wrought  for  years  in  mission  fields  in 
two  continents,  Asia  and  South  America.  With 
long  experience  in  the  home  church  and  mission 
fields,  thus  touching  three  Continents,  and  besides 
having  been  both  a  missionary  bishop  and  a  gen¬ 
eral  superintendent,  he  is  an  exceedingly  com¬ 
petent  witness. 

The  Reverend  Bishop  William  F.  Oldham,  to 
whom  we  refer,  has  an  article  on  “  Bishops  for 

275 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Foreign  Areas/ ’  in  The  Christian  Advocate ,  of 
July  20,  1922,  in  which  he  says : 

“The  missionary  episcopacy  was  never  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  complaint  from  the  fields  in  which  it  ob¬ 
tained.  Stirring  remarks  were  sometimes  made 
at  home.  Some  episcopal  lips  named  it  a  ‘bob¬ 
tailed  episcopacy,  ’  which  may  have  been  true, 
since  it  lacks  the  fluttering  appendages  with  which 
to  brush  off  such  fly-bites.  Others,  earnest  mis¬ 
sionary  advocates,  thought  it  belittled  our  foreign 
missions  to  have  their  bishops  of  any  different 
range  of  privileges  from  the  home  bishops.  But 
the  missionary  bishops  themselves,  and  the  great 
bulk  of  the  missionaries  associated  with  them, 
recognized  that  for  the  purposes  of  his  work  the 
local  bishop  had  all  the  powers  that  were  neces¬ 
sary,  and  if  he  could  not  exercise  episcopal  pow¬ 
ers  in  the  homeland,  that  did  not  affect  his  effi¬ 
ciency  in  his  own  area.  There  never  was  any 
question  as  to  his  acceptability  by  the  home 
church  when  addressing  himself  to  the  cultivation 
of  missionary  sentiment  or  pressing  upon  it  the 
peculiar  needs  of  his  own  field.  Indeed,  there 
was  a  time  in  our  history  when  Thoburn  of  India 
and  Hartzell  of  Africa  were  easily  the  most  popu¬ 
lar  speakers  on  missionary  themes  in  the  whole 
church,  and  were  more  eagerly  sought  for  in  great 
missionary  occasions  than  any.  In  those  days  it 
might  have  been  said  that  to  the  church  Thoburn 
was  India  and  Hartzell  was  Africa,  and  in  any 
assembly  of  the  bishops  the  fact  that  these  men 
were  distinctly  committed  to  foreign  missions  for 

276 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


life  gave  their  presence  a  certain  distinctive  note 
which  was  an  asset  to  their  foreign  fields.  That 
they  did  not  preside  at  the  General  Conference 
(not  a  thing  to  be  grasped  at)  nor  in  Annual  Con¬ 
ferences  at  home,  etc.,  were  very  minor  luxuries 
for  lack  of  which  there  was  no  great  repining 
among  either  these  bishops  or  their  fellow  work¬ 
ers.  Indeed,  when  a  man’s  mind  and  heart  were 
full  of  the  great  problems  of  any  foreign  field  it 
would  have  been  doubtful  wisdom  to  put  under  his 
presidency  a  home  Conference  of  which  he  had  no 
close  knowledge  and  of  the  immediate  background 
of  those  local  questions  he,  presumably,  knew  lit¬ 
tle  or  nothing.  .  .  .  These  limitations  upon  the 
missionary  episcopacy  then,  did  not  cause  any 
curtailment  either  in  efficiency  or  in  real  avail¬ 
ability  for  the  work  they  had  in  hand,  at  home  or 
abroad.”1 

These  are  weighty  words  from  the  ripe  experi¬ 
ence  of  a  man  specially  fitted  to  speak  on  this 
question.  He  spent  long  years  in  the  missionary 
field  in  India,  he  was  elected  a  missionary  bishop 
for  India  and,  after  he  had  served  for  years,  he 
relinquished  that  position  and  served  as  a  mis¬ 
sionary  secretary,  and  after  that  he  was  elected 
a  general  superintendent  and  he  has  served  in 
that  office  over  six  years.  He  knows  the  foreign 
field,  he  knows  the  missionary  episcopacy,  and  he 
knows  the  general  superintendency,  and  his  testi¬ 
mony  in  favor  of  the  missionary  episcopate  has 

special  value  and  should  carry  conviction  to  every 

.  1 

1 The  Christian  Advocate,  New  York,  July  20,  1922. 

277 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


mind.  The  deduction  from  his  declaration  is  that 
the  best  form  of  episcopacy  for  the  foreign  mis¬ 
sion  field  is  the  missionary  episcopate. 

He  writes  with  wisdom  and  common  sense  when 
he  says : 

“The  fact  of  the  man  having  spent  fifteen  or 
twenty-five  years  on  the  field,  learning  the  ways 
and  sinking  into  the  soul  of  a  people,  was  an  asset 
in  the  missionary  bishop  whose  absence  will 
necessarily  be  felt  in  many  cases  without  the 
knowledge  of  any  but  discerning  and  discreet  mis¬ 
sionaries  and  the  national  leaders,  and  both  these 
classes  are  likely  to  bear  in  silence  the  limitations 
of  their  chief  officers. 

“And  again,  nowhere  as  in  our  foreign  fields  is 
continuity  of  administration  so  necessary  for  any¬ 
thing  approaching  efficiency.” 

In  such  a  discussion  the  nature  of  the  people 
on  the  foreign  field  must  be  remembered  and  con¬ 
stantly  considered. 

Bearing  upon  this  Bishop  Oldham  tells  us : 

“Your  Oriental,  African,  or  even  your  Latin 
man,  does  not  give  his  confidence  easily  to  a 
stranger,  particularly  when  that  stranger  is  new 
to  his  surroundings.  The  time  element  must  be 
reckoned  with  in  estimating  probable  efficiency  in 
foreign  fields  a  great  deal  more  than  at  home.  In 
the  gallant  days  of  old  when  a  Bishop  dashed  in  a 
few  days  before  Conference,  and  rushed  out  a  few 
hours  after,  we  were  so  accustomed  to  the  amaz¬ 
ing  phenomenon  that  we  failed  to  weigh  what  it 
meant  to  more  lethargic  peoples  unused  to  our 

278 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


familiarity  with  suddenness.  Now  that  we  our¬ 
selves  are  beginning  to  really  believe  that  bishops, 
like  others,  need  time  and  opportunity  to  acquaint 
themselves  with  their  fields,  it  will  be  more  easily 
recognized  that  people  less  agile,  more  secretive, 
and  in  many  cases,  prejudiced  against  the  author¬ 
ity  of  foreigners,  need  more  continuous  supervi¬ 
sion  by  persons  whom  they  have  had  time  and  op¬ 
portunity  to  learn  to  trust. 

“In  the  case  of  the  missionary  episcopacy  this 
continuity  was  secured  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
appointment.  ’ ’ 

Bishop  Oldham  analyzes  the  facts  of  history 
and  states,  what  will  be  conceded  instantly  by 
any  one  who  has  considered  the  assignment  of 
general  superintendents  to  residences  in  foreign 
fields,  that  there  is  little,  if  any,  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  bishops  themselves,  or  some  think,  on 
the  part  of  the  General  Conference,  to  settle  the 
general  superintendents  permanently  in  foreign 
missions  where  of  all  fields  a  considerable  degree 
of  permanence  is  required.  Others  think  that 
some  of  the  managers  are  aiming  to  make  general 
superintendents  as  permanent  in  the  foreign,  as 
they  have  been  in  the  home  field.  This,  however, 
is  contrary  to  the  law  of  the  church. 

On  this  point  Bishop  Oldham  says: 

“Of  all  the  thirteen  living  effective  general 
superintendents  who  are  now  or  have  been  in  the 
past  in  foreign  areas,  who  were  not  at  the  time  of 
their  election  missionary  bishops,  there  are  but 
three  in  their  second  quadrennium,  while  three 

279 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


are  back  in  the  home  fields.  Ten  are  in  their  first 
qnadrenninm.  That  is,  of  six  superintendents 
three  returned  from  their  foreign  residence  to 
home  areas  after  four  years. 

“Is  there  any  reason  to  forecast  the  willing  re¬ 
turn  to  a  second  quadrennium  of  more  than  five 
of  the  ten  now  in  foreign  residence?  While  a 
fours  years’  term  is  vastly  better  than  the  former 
four  weeks,  it  yet  does  not  make  for  the  larger 
efficiency.  At  this  point  I  would  say  that  the 
whole  church  was  probably  moved  by  two  great 
general  superintendents  in  China,  Brothers  Bash- 
ford  and  Lewis,  into  thinking  that  such  continuity 
of  administration  and  such  absorption  in  the  land 
and  people  as  they  manifested  would  be  the  com¬ 
mon  characteristics  of  all  sent  into  the  foreign 
areas.  But  is*  this  not  expecting  too  much  from 
human  nature  even  when  sanctified  by  episcopal 
election?  And  in  saying  this  I  would  not  be  held 
to  reflect  in  the  least  upon  the  successors  of  the 
great  China  bishops,  for  they  are  amongst  the 
choicest  spirits  in  the  church.  ’  ’ 

The  fact  that  comparatively  few  of  the  general 
superintendents  remain  long  in  the  foreign  fields 
to  which  they  have  been  assigned  is  plainly  against 
the  policy  of  sending  them  abroad  in  that  way, 
however  the  fact  may  be  explained.  It  may  be 
said  that  some  return  soon  because  of  climatic 
reasons,  and  failure  of  health  on  the  part  of  the 
unaoclimated  bishop  or  some  member  of  his  fam¬ 
ily,  but  whatever  may  be  the  specific  reason,  it 
raises  a  question  against  the  wisdom  of  sending 

280 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


general  superintendents  to  reside  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries  where  they  have  had  no  previous  experience. 

Generally  speaking,  climatic  difficulties  are 
avoided  when  the  bishops  are  chosen  from  men 
who  have  been  years  on  the  field  and  are  acclima¬ 
tized,  as  has  been  shown  in  cases  where  men  of 
the  locality  have  been  made  missionary  bishops. 

Bishop  Oldham  remarks : 

“When  we  turn  to  the  administration  of  the 
fields  themselves  the  change  in  the  methods  of 
electing  and  appointing  bishops  becomes  a  matter 
for  serious  consideration.  The  question  may  thus 
be  brusquely  stated.  Does  superintendency  by 
general  superintendents  promise  more  efficiency 
or  better  outcomes  than  by  the  former  method  in 
India  and  Africa?  Apart  from  the  supposed 
limitations  I  have  already  discussed,  a  more  sig¬ 
nificant  objection  lay  against  the  missionary  epis¬ 
copacy  that  the  choice  of  men  was  restricted  to 
those  either  from  the  missionaries  on  the  field,  or 
from  men  of  known  devotion  to  foreign  missions 
who  were  not  elected  to  other  General  Conference 
offices. 

“But  was  this  an  objection?  Even  if  in  any  of 
these  great  fields  there  were  no  men  of  command¬ 
ing  prominence — which  I  do  not  for  a  moment 
concede — yet  have  there  not  always  been  men  who 
command  the  confidence  of  the  national  church 
and  of  their  fellow  missionaries,  and  would  not 
the  selection  of  such  men  have  secured  perma¬ 
nence  in  administration,  as  well  as  that  hinter  land 
of  knowledge  of  peoples  and  variant  civilizations, 

281 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


the  absence  of  which  is  rarely  suspected  by  men 
who,  successful  at  home,  are  suddenly  plunged 
into  responsibility  abroad  I” 

With  the  new  policy  of  sending  general  super¬ 
intendent  bishops  to  foreign  mission  fields,  the 
chances  are  against  the  foreign  missionary,  or  the 
minister  of  the  native  church  in  the  foreign  field 
being  elected  to  the  general  superintendency.  The 
preponderance  of  voters  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  are,  and  will  be  for  some  time,  from  the  home 
church,  and  the  overwhelming  probability  will  be 
that  they  will  elect  bishops  who  are  of  the  home 
church.  The  exception  must  be  exceedingly  rare. 

That  will  mean  that  the  ministers  of  the  for¬ 
eign  mission  will  be  almost  invariably  passed  by 
and  that,  of  course,  will  not  always  be  satisfac¬ 
tory  to  the  native  church  where  educated  and  com¬ 
petent  ministers  are  being  developed.  Of  course 
it  may  be  said  that  one  or  two  men  have  been 
elected  general  superintendents  from  the  foreign 
field,  but  hardly  that,  and  in  the  large  number 
elected  in  1920,  only  one  was  so  elected  and  he  was 
from  Europe.  This,  however,  does  not  include  the 
missionary  bishops  who  were  made  general  su¬ 
perintendents,  as  they  were  exceptional,  and  not 
an  election  from  the  ordinary  ministry. 

In  his  wise  observations,  Bishop  Oldham  says : 

“  Again  there  is  the  growing  racial  conscious¬ 
ness  of  our  foreign  churches.  For  a  long  time  it 
has  been  fondly  believed  that  our  Oriental  Method¬ 
ism  was  entirely  content  to  be  almost  entirely  led 
by  foreign  leaders.  However  this  may  be,  they 

282 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


surely  cannot  be  expected  to  remain  so.  This 
would  argue  such  excess  of  humility  or  defect  of 
self-respect  as  ought  not  to  be  looked  for.  With 
the  utmost  affection  and  respect  for  their  present 
leaders  the  national  churches  would  be  in  danger 
of  forfeiting  our  esteem  if  they  did  not  begin  to 
feel  and  voice  aspiration  for  a  larger  place  for 
native  leadership.  It  may  reasonably  be  sus¬ 
pected  that  the  mild  Indian  and  the  patient  China¬ 
man  will  remain  neither  mild  nor  patient  if  there 
be  not  a  little  more  haste  to  make  for  him  a  larger 
place  in  the  official  leadership  of  his  church. 

4 ‘Now  it  was  always  possible  for  an  Indian,  or  a 
Chinaman,  or  a  South  American  to  be  elected  a 
missionary  superintendent,  though  the  fact  that 
none  ever  was  may  afford  some  ground  for  search¬ 
ings  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  heart. 

“But  when  may  we  look  for  the  election  to  the 
general  superintendency  of  any  of  these  far  off 
and  unknown  sons  of  the  church;  unknown,  I 
mean,  to  the  great  bulk,of  the  delegates  V9 

Practically  never,  must  be  the  answer.  Under 
the  new  policy  which  some  would  thrust  upon 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  absolutely 
never.  First,  because  the  composition  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  would  prevent  it ;  and,  second,  be¬ 
cause  with  an  exchangeable  general  superintend¬ 
ency,  permitting  the  foreign  field  to  be  forever 
manned  by  those  who  to  the  natives  are  foreign¬ 
ers,  and,  if  there  were  native  general  superintend¬ 
ents,  making  it  possible  to  translate  the  native 
general  superintendent  of  the  foreign  field  to  an 

283 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


assignment  in  the  United  States  of  America,  there 
would  be  a  situation  that  would  be  intolerable  for 
the  natives  in  the  foreign  mission,  and  equally  un¬ 
acceptable  for  the  church  in  the  United  States. 
The  ultimate  rights  of  a  people  or  a  race  would 
cause  rebellion  against  such  an  arrangement.  It 
is  quite  clear,  however,  that  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence  would  not  elect  a  native  of  certain  countries 
to  be  a  general  superintendent  with  the  possibility 
or  probability  that  such  a  bishop  would  be  shifted 
to  a  residence  in  the  United  States,  and  the  native 
would  not  want  to  leave  his  native  country.  But 
once  a  man  has  been  made  a  general  superintend¬ 
ent,  all  that  would  be  possible ;  but  it  could  not  be 
with  the  missionary  bishopric.  Further,  facts 
show  that  to  the  missionary  bishopric  it  would  be 
easier  to  elect  a  native  or  a  long-time  missionary 
on  the  foreign  field. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  how  Bishop  Oldham 
makes  distinctions  between  the  church  in  the 
United  States  and  the  foreign  mission  fields.  In 
his  mind  the  distinction  is  clearly  marked. 

He  speaks  of  “the  homeland,’ ’  “the  home 
church,”  and  “at  home  or  abroad.”  He  writes  of 
“a  home  Conference,”  and  “the  home  bishops.” 
He  says  “at  home,”  and  mentions  “home  fields” 
and  “home  areas,”  and  indicates  a  contrast  be¬ 
tween  them  and  “the  foreign  areas,”  meaning 
the  foreign  mission  fields.  Referring  to  the  mis¬ 
sion  organizations  in  foreign  countries,  he  writes 
of  “our  foreign  churches,”  he  uses  the  title  “the 
national  church”  and  calls  them  “the  national 

284 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


churches,”  meaning  the  membership  made  up  of 
the  native  people  of  those  lands;  and  in  a  similar 
way  he  refers  to  “the  national  leaders,”  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  the  native’s  point  of 
view,  he  speaks  of  the  American  and  other  bishops, 
from  other  lands,  as  “foreign  leaders,”  that  is  to 
the  natives  in  the  missions  abroad. 

All  these  show  the  natural  working  of  a  mind 
that  is  peculiarly  fitted  to  take  the  point  of  view, 
on  the  one  hand,  of  the  American  who  recognizes 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  as  the  mother  church  in  the 
homeland,  and  at  the  same  time  can  view  the  off¬ 
spring  of  this  American  church  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries,  developing  amid  their  own  racial,  linguistic, 
historical,  and  national  peculiarities,  and  growing 
into  a  true,  but  transplanted  Methodism,  which, 
though  like  the  mother  church,  will  have  varia¬ 
tions,  due  to  its  different  environment,  and  race 
inheritance,  with  its  own  ambitions  and  native  as¬ 
pirations,  which  may  require,  will  require,  and 
do  require  peculiarities  of  treatment  different 
from  that  which  pertains  in  the  home  church  in 
America. 

That  being  the  case,  it  may  be  unwise  to  try  to 
fasten  on  every  foreign  mission  all  the  methods 
of  the  mother  church  made  up  of  another  race 
with  another  history.  The  distinction  between 
the  home  church  and  its  foreign  missions  must  be 
definitely  maintained. 


285 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  DENOMINATIONAL  MISSION 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  DENOMINATIONAL  MISSION 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  has  sent  its  missionaries  into 
many  parts  of  the  world  and  established  foreign 
missions  in  all  the  continents  and  in  a  number  of 
the  islands  of  a  number  of  the  seas. 

What  it  has  attempted  in  this  regard  must  to 
some  seem  rather  ambitious  for  a  single  denomi¬ 
nation,  but  it  was  not  an  ambition  for  its  own 
aggrandizement,  but  a  desire  to  discharge  its  duty 
to  the  world  in  obedience  to  the  great  commission 
of  Christ  to  go  into  the  world  and  preach  his 
gospel. 

In  these  efforts  it  does  not  expect  to  do  all  that 
the  entire  Christian  Church  should  and  can  do, 
but  it  hopes  to  do  its  share.  All  the  churches 
have  their  responsibility,  and  no  one  denomina¬ 
tion  can  do  everything,  but,  all  working  for  the 
common  object,  Christianity  should  be  spread 
throughout  the  entire  world. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  does  not  pre¬ 
sume  to  claim  that  it  has  done  its  full  part,  but 
the  unprejudiced  observer,  who  has  accurate 
knowledge  of  what  has  been  attempted  and  ac¬ 
complished,  will  say  that  it  has  done  very  much. 

It  has  ventured  into  many  countries,  sent  many 
Christian  workers,  planted  many  churches,  and 

'  289 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


established  many  benevolent  institutions. 
Throughout  the  years  it  has  freely  contributed 
vast  sums  of  money  to  carry  on  the  work,  and 
very  recently  it  has  raised  a  phenomenal  sum 
amounting  to  many  millions  of  dollars,  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  celebration  of  the  centenary  of 
the  organization  of  its  missionary  society  in  1819. 
Before  that  date,  however,  it  had  done  missionary 
work  in  foreign  lands.  All  that  for  more  than  a 
hundred  years  meant  very  much  for  what  really 
was  a  young  church,  and,  as  it  is  to-day,  com¬ 
pared  with  ancient  churches. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  sent  out  from 
the  home  land  its  influence  in  various  directions 
and  in  many  foreign  parts,  not  that  it  might  rule 
the  world,  but  that  it  might  Christianize  the  for¬ 
eign  peoples  in  these  lands.  It  did  not  mean  to  be 
a  world  government,  and  it  did  not  propose  to  put 
itself  in  position  where  the  peoples  of  the  world 
could  rule  it,  and  it  never  intended  to  rule  the 
world  or  to  be  ruled  by  the  world.  It  was  an 
American  church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
and  with  no  thought  of  being  anything  else  than 
an  American  church,  but  an  American  church 
helping  the  world  as  far  as  it  might  be  able. 

It  undertook  to  place  the  leaven  of  Christ’s  gos¬ 
pel  in  the  lump  here  and  there,  hoping  that  it 
would  leaven  the  local  lump  of  humanity  in  this 
and  that  place,  so  that  after  awhile,  the  gospel 
influence  from  one  point  would  come  in  contact 
with  a  similar  influence  from  other  places,  and  so 
on  and  on  until  the  whole  world  would  be  leavened. 

290 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


This  has  been  going  on  through  the  years  until 
now  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  the 
mother  church  of  many  foreign  missions.  They 
have  been  nurtured  by  the  mother  church  in  the 
United  States  and  now  they  are  developing  and 
pressing  on  to  maturity,  where  they  will  have  the 
natural  impulse  to  care  for  themselves  and  man¬ 
age  their  own  affairs.  When  they  are  ready  for 
that  the  mother  will  give  them  her  blessing  and 
still  give  them  an  affectionate  interest  and  more. 

In  the  United  States  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  be¬ 
cause  it  believes  that  is  best,  and  so  it  preaches 
the  doctrines  of  that  church  and  conducts  its 
affairs  according  to  the  polity  of  the  denomina¬ 
tion.  Hence  when  the  membership  of  this  church 
contributes  for  the  support  of  foreign  missions  it 
naturally  demands  that  these  missions  shall  be 
carried  on  according  to  Methodist  Episcopal  ideas. 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  therefore  ex¬ 
pects  that  the  missionary  management,  with  its 
offices  in  the  United  States,  and  its  missionaries 
abroad,  shall  administer  in  the  foreign  field  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  doctrines,  the  polity,  and  the  usages 
of  this  church,  and  that,  while  the  workers  in  the 
foreign  missions  shall  there  spread  Christian 
truth,  it  shall  be  Christianity  after  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  type. 

This  is  the  type  it  has  known  and  tested,  and  in 
which  it  believes  as  the  purest  and  best,  and 
as  most  in  accord  with  the  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  because  of  this  faith  it  conscien- 

291 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


tiously  holds  that  this  type  of  church  should  be 
carried  by  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  its 
missions  in  foreign  lands,  and  that  its  Christian 
doctrine  should  be  the  interpretation  of  its  own 
church. 

This  is  calculated  to  make  foreign  duplications 
of  itself,  and  the  foundations  of  their  organiza¬ 
tion  are  laid  on  that  plan,  and  the  further  forma¬ 
tion  is  expected  to  be  carried  on  according  to  these 
principles,  and  the  ministers  and  members  are  to 
be  trained  according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  this 
church,  so  that  when  they  have  self-government 
these  forms  and  methods  will  be  perpetuated,  but, 
when  the  missions  become  independent,  they  will 
be  free  to  modify  as  they  may  deem  necessary. 

To  do  all  this  those  in  the  management  must 
be  extremely  circumspect  and  always  on  guard 
against  adverse  tendencies,  and  particularly  those 
that  might  not  be  suspected  because  of  popular 
support  and  skillful  propaganda. 

Some  of  these  dangerous  influences  may  chance 
to  lie  under  the  cover  of  extreme  but  specious 
presentations  of  cooperation  and  federation.  Both 
cooperation  and  federation  are  to  be  commended 
when  they  are  the  right  kind,  and  they  may  not 
be  regarded  as  the  right  kind  simply  because  they 
are  so  styled.  When  they  are  the  wrong  kind 
they  are  apt  to  be  disastrous,  particularly  in  the 
case  of  this  denomination. 

It  is  a  settled  principle  that  denominational 
work  must  be  done  in  a  denominational  way,  and 
this  is  reasonable  because  in  the  denominational 


292 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


mission  the  denomination  is  responsible  and  can¬ 
not  pass  the  responsibility  over  to  another. 

For  this  reason  the  direct  control  of  its  educa¬ 
tional  system  should  be  with  the  denomination. 
It  should  educate  its  own,  and  particularly,  where 
the  religious  idea  is  involved  in  it,  and  where  in¬ 
terpretations  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  have  a 
part  it  should  be  self-evident  that  the  denomina¬ 
tion  should  have  the  control. 

Much  has  been  said  in  favor  of  union  schools 
and  colleges  in  foreign  fields,  and  it  may  be  ad¬ 
mitted  that  something  may  be  said  for  them  on 
the  basis  of  economy;  but  the  financial  matter  is 
not  the  main  thing,  and,  as  a  practical  fact,  it  is 
more  than  doubtful  whether  there  is  any  real 
financial  saving,  and  one  may  wonder  how  much 
financial  saving  the  treasurer’s  accounts  show. 

Suppose  the  Methodist  Episcopal  mission  in  a 
foreign  country  has  a  school  or  college  of  its  own, 
and  is  persuaded  to  unionize  it,  and  goes  into  a 
partnership  with  five  or  six  other  denominations, 
with  their  joint  ownership  and  management. 
Where  does  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  find 
itself?  It  no  longer  has  its  school  or  college,  it 
has  no  longer  the  control,  and  it  has  only  a  frac¬ 
tion  of  the  faculty  and  a  fraction  of  the  board  of 
trustees.  In  other  words  it  is  only  a  minority 
stockholder. 

It  may  be  held  that  the  other  churches  are  no 
better  off,  but  that  does  not  relieve  the  predica¬ 
ment  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  has 
lost  something,  and  lost  very  much.  It  has 

293 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


involved  itself  with  persons  of  different  views 
from  those  it  holds  and  it  has  put  its  young  people 
under  different  influences  from  its  own. 

The  arrangement  is  even  more  objectionable 
where  the  education  is  theological.  We  heard  a 
prominent  man  refer  to  the  unionized  theological 
school  in  a  foreign  mission  field,  and  we  cannot 
forget  the  laughing  way  he  referred  to  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  denominational  doctrines,  and  he  said  all 
of  that  was  done  in  only  two  weeks  in  a  year.  He 
seemed  to  think  it  was  a  joke,  and,  perhaps  it  was. 
Such  unionization  makes  possibilities  of  con¬ 
fusion,  in  the  faculties,  in  the  trustees,  and  in  the 
kind  of  men  selected.  Surely,  there  are  enough 
legitimate  opportunities  for  fraternity  and  fed¬ 
eration  without  taking  such  risks. 

If  the  work  were  simply  secular,  the  matter 
might  be  different,  but  mission  work  is  religious, 
and  touches  the  personal  influence  and  the  reli¬ 
gious  atmosphere,  while  it  imperils  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  idea  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  mis¬ 
sion.  This  I  must  say  though  I  have  always  stood 
for  fraternization  between  the  denominations. 

For  the  sake  of  the  foreign  mission  special  at¬ 
tention  should  always  be  given  the  home  church 
in  the  homeland.  The  vigor  and  spirituality  of 
the  home  church  should  always  be  kept  up.  The 
stability  of  the  home  church  should  be  maintained. 
Some  things  should  be  regarded  as  settled,  and 
there  should  not  be  radical  revolutions  in  the 
principles  and  the  polity  of  the  church  between 
mails. 


294 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


The  home  church  should  always  be  sincerely 
sympathetic  toward  its  foreign  missions,  though 
in  the  supervision  it  should  exercise  a  firm  con¬ 
trol.  It  directs  and  trains  that  the  peoples  may 
learn  how  to  govern  their  own  affairs,  as  they 
become  familiar  with  the  doctrines  and  polity  of 
the  church  that  sent  them  the  gospel.  With  this 
training  the  mission  will  have  the  groundwork  for 
future  prosperity  even  if  some  modifications  come 
later. 

The  mother  church  obeys  the  commandment  to 
go  and  preach  the  gospel,  but,  having  done  so,  it 
is  not  compelled  to  stay  as  a  ruling  force  forever. 
When,  after  its  teaching  and  training,  Christian¬ 
ity  still  remains,  it  will  be  free  to  move  on  from 
place  to  place,  and  go  on  throughout  the  world  as 
far  as  it  may  be  able. 

While  it  does  this,  the  mother  church  must  pre¬ 
serve,  and  does  preserve,  its  own  separate  entity, 
and  identity,  as  an  American  church,  and  this  it 
must  continue  to  be,  for  it  is  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


t 


295 


CHAPTER  XIV 


THE  NEXT  STEP  NOT  A  FALSE  STEP 


CHAPTER  XIV 


THE  NEXT  STEP  NOT  A  FALSE  STEP 

As  to  the  question  of  the  organic  relation  of  the 
mother  church  to  its  foreign  missions  there  is 
growing  up  a  literature  of  its  own,  generally  writ¬ 
ten  by  persons  who  have  had  experience  in  foreign 
fields  or  who  have  been  closely  connected  with  the 
cause  of  missions. 

Among  these  publications  there  has  recently 
appeared  a  little  book  entitled  The  Next  Step, 
which  fell  into  our  hands  since  we  wrote  the  fore¬ 
going  chapters.  The  author  of  the  work  is  a  mis¬ 
sionary  in  China,  the  Reverend  Paul  Hutchinson, 
of  Shanghai,  and  recently  connected  with  the 
Centenary  Movement  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

The  book  is  written  in  a  sprightly  style,  and 
contains  important  facts  which  are  worthy  of  at¬ 
tention,  and  have  value,  even  when  the  reader  may 
not  be  able  to  accept  all  his  deductions.1 

The  author  assumes  that  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  has  taken  certain  steps  in  relation  to 
its  foreign  missions,  and  reasons  that  the  steps 
already  taken  necessitate  another  step,  and  he  en¬ 
deavors  to  show  what  “The  Next  Step”  ought 

maul  Hutchinson:  The  Next  Step ,  a  Study  in  Methodist 
Polity;  New  York:  Methodist  Book  Concern,  1922,  pp.  119, 
16mo. 


299 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


to  be.  The  author  ’s  statements  strongly  support 
what  we  have  written  about  the  unrest  and  the 
decided  trend  toward  nationalism  and  self-gov¬ 
ernment  among  the  peoples  in  foreign  mission 
fields. 

Japan  stands  out  as  an  illustration  and  a  dem¬ 
onstration  of  the  tendency  which  we  have  indi¬ 
cated,  and,  referring  to  the  independence  which 
came  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Mission  in  Japan 
the  author  says :  4  4  The  fact  is  that  it  was  an  ac¬ 
tion  brought  about  by  forces  over  which  no  body 
in  America  could  exert  control.”1  Then  he  says, 
4  4  There  are  tremendous  nationalistic  currents 
flowing  through  Asia  in  these  days  comprising  the 
most  vital,  most  helpful,  and  the  dangerous  reali¬ 
ties  influencing  the  future  of  this  continent.”2 

And  this  he  follows  by  saying  that  4  4  Long  be¬ 
fore  Japan  fought  China  for  the  leadership  of  the 
Far  East  and  the  right  to  demonstrate  her  theo¬ 
rem,  the  increase  of  the  nationalistic  spirit  had 
pointed  toward  the  setting  up  of  independent  na¬ 
tional  churches.”3 

All  this  shows  that  the  trend  in  the  foreign 
missions  is  toward  self-government  and  independ¬ 
ence.  The  statements  of  the  author  are  admis¬ 
sions  of  this  natural  and  actual  drift.  To 
strengthen  him  in  these  contentions  he  quotes  an 
author  of  some  years  ago,  who  speaks  more  par¬ 
ticularly  about  India.  He  cites  statements  in  Pro- 

1The  Next  Step,  p.  27. 

mid.,  p.  27. 

mid.,  pp.  28,  29. 

300 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


lessor  I.  J.  Fleming’s  Devolution  in  Mission  Ad¬ 
ministration}  Thus  he  quotes:  “So  long  as  the 
foreign  missionaries  keep  entire  control  of  the 
affairs  of  the  church  in  India,  and  govern  it  in 
their  own  way,  instead  of  adapting  it  to  suit  the 
country,  the  church  will  have  a  foreign  stamp  on 
it  and  the  non-Christians  will  continue  to  regard 
it  as  an  exotic  and  Occidental  religion.” 

His  facts  and  contentions  go  to  show  that  some 
change  between  the  mission  fields  and  the  mother 
church  in  government  and  in  methods  is  inevit¬ 
able.  With  the  aspiration  in  the  foreign  missions 
for  self-determination,  or  independence,  either 
the  mother  church  must  change  its  relation  to  the 
foreign  field,  or  the  foreign  mission  will  change 
its  relation  to  the  mother  church,  and  this  may  he 
said  without  any  criticism  on  the  home  church. 
The  mother  church  cannot  go  on  forever  adding 
foreign  field  to  foreign  field,  with  the  increasing 
expense,  while  its  offspring,  feeling  the  natural 
impulse  toward  freedom  and  self-determination, 
goes  on  expressing  discomfort  and  dissatisfaction. 
The  home  church  cannot  forever  bear  such  a  bur¬ 
den,  and  the  feeling  of  the  mission  is  likely  to  in¬ 
crease.  In  the  family,  parents  see  the  inevitable, 
which  is  also  the  natural,  and  they  let  the  children 
go  out  with  their  blessing  and  so  retain  their  love. 
The  church  should  be  just  as  wise  when  the  right 
time  arrives  for  the  foreign  mission  to  conduct  its 
own  affairs.  That  the  church  is  at  least  thinking 

*New  York,  Fleming  H.  Revell  Co.,  1916;  quoted  in  The 
Next  Step,  p.  18. 


t 


301 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


what  it  should  do  is  pretty  plain.  At  least  it  is 
beginning  to  think  about  this  important  subject. 

The  author  of  The  Next  Step  starts  out  with 
allusions  to  what  the  General  Conference  has 
done,  and,  particularly,  the  late  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1920.  He  asks:  “Does  the  church  realize 
what  it  has  done,  or  is  in  process  of  doing  ?”  and 
remarks,  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
before  this  entered  upon  policies  of  far-reaching 
import  when  the  majority  of  its  members  had  lit¬ 
tle  conception  of  what  was  in  progress.’ n  He 
states  that  “The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is, 
apparently,  committed  to  a  great  adventure,’ *  but 
his  evidence  is  simply  an  action  of  the  General 
Conference  which  he  so  interprets. 

But,  even  if  the  body  did  intend  such  a  policy, 
is  it  correct  to  say  that,  because  a  General  Con¬ 
ference  passed  a  certain  measure,  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  had  deliberately  done  it,  and 
especially,  when  the  policy  was  to  unconstitution¬ 
ally  change  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  when 
it  is  clear  that  even  the  General  Conference  can¬ 
not  lawfully  infringe  on  the  Constitution  of  the 
General  Conference  and  of  the  whole  church? 
Certainly  not.  The  whole  church  is  greater  than 
its  creature,  the  General  Conference. 

Referring  to  one  thing  that  went  through  the 
recent  General  Conference  of  1920,  which  we  have 
in  previous  pages  scrutinized,  criticised,  and  con¬ 
demned,  he  says:  “Future  historians  of  The 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  probably  agree 


1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  15. 


302 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


that  the  most  important  action  taken  at  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  of  1920  was  that  which  placed  in 
the  book  of  Discipline  the  amended  paragraph  at 
present  numbered  95.”  What  the  author  speaks 
of  as  paragraph  95,  and  so  it  is  numbered  and 
arranged  in  the  printed  book  of  Discipline,  is 
really  a  whole  chapter,  with  the  caption:  4 ‘Chap¬ 
ter  IV.  Central  Mission  Conferences,”  contain¬ 
ing  numerous  sections.  He  uses  an  expressive 
word  when  he  says,  “how  blindly  we  may  be  pro¬ 
gressing  toward  radical  alterations.”  “Blindly” 
is  a  proper  word,  for  of  late  that  is  the  way  man}7 
things  have  “progressed,”  and  gradually,  but 
steadily,  things  vital  to  the  church  have  been 
swept  away,  and  the  people  did  not  realize  it  until 
some  time  after  the  deed  has  been  done. 

Some  of  the  things  to  which  he  refers  are  plainly 
unconstitutional,  and  therefore,  are  null  and  void, 
and,  when  the  General  Conference  of  1920  in¬ 
serted  into  the  Chapter  on  ‘  ‘  Central  Mission  Con¬ 
ferences”  things  that  are  absolutely  unconstitu¬ 
tional,  as  it  did,  they  were  of  no  effect,  for  the  in¬ 
sertion  was  not  legal.  This  has  been  shown  in 
Chapter  X,  particularly  in  connection  with  items 
in  the  Chapter  on  “Central  Mission  Confer¬ 
ences.”  The  church  did  not  do  it,  and  the  church 
is  not  bound  to  conform  to  an  unconstitutional 
act  of  the  General  Conference,  but  should  arise  in 
its  might  and  demand  that  these  illegal  insertions 
be  taken  out.  The  whole  church  constitutionally 
is  higher  than  the  General  Conference,  and  it  is 
time  that  all  should  know  that  the  delegated  Gen- 

-  303 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


eral  Conference  is  not  a  supreme  and  irresponsi¬ 
ble  body. 

Here  is  where  The  Next  Step  has  a  bad  footing 
on  the  assumption  that  the  church  has  legally  put 
these  illegal  things  into  the  chapter  on  the  4  4  Cen¬ 
tral  Mission  Conferences.”  This  is  not  terra 
firma.  There  is  no  firm  ground  here  from  which 
to  take  the  next  step,  and  the  author’s  plan  for 
4 4 The  Next  Step”  should  be  revised.  What  this 
particular  plan  is  may  more  fully  appear. 

In  mentioning  what  he  terms  44a  great  adven¬ 
ture  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,”  the 
author  says,  4  4  It  is  seeking  to  establish  an  eccle¬ 
siastical  organization  world  wide  in  scope  but 
democratic  in  nature.”1 

Probably  the  church  generally  does  not  know 
that  it  is  4 4 committed  to  a  great  adventure,”  so 
described,  but  history  and  reason  show  that  such 
a  proposal  involves  a  contradiction,  and  that  it  is 
a  practical  contradiction  to  speak  of  4  4  an  ecclesi¬ 
astical  organization  world-wide  in  scope,”  and 
yet 4 4 democratic  in  nature.”  This  is  so  because  a 
world-wide  church  embraces  an  expanse  so  vast, 
with  so  many  different  countries  and  diversities 
of  peoples,  and  with  such  impracticable  distances 
that  it  is  destructive  of  genuine  and  proportion¬ 
ate  representation,  and  tends  to,  and  necessitates, 
an  autocratic  centralization  in  the  effort  to  secure 
an  effective  government.  This  is  illustrated  by 
the  history  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  If  we  ask, 
Can  an  ecclesiastical  government  be  world-wide 


1 The  Next  Step,  p.  11. 


304 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


and  be  truly  democratic  everywhere  ?  The  answer 
must  be  in  the  negative.  In  proof  we  cite  the 
Roman  so-called  ecumenical  Church. 

The  author  admits  that  this  is  an  exceptional 
aim,  and  that  the  other  Protestant  denominations 
are  or  would  be  against  such  a  scheme.  Hence  he 
savs:  “None  of  the  other  Protestant  bodies  holds 
before  itself  any  such  goal.  It  is  doubtful  if  even 
the  other  members  of  the  Methodist  family  have 
in  view  such  an  outcome  for  their  missionary  ef¬ 
forts.  These  other  churches,  Methodist  and  other¬ 
wise,  would  probably  judge  such  an  undertaking 
as  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  entered 
upon  a  mistaken  policy,  holding  that  the  building 
of  the  universal  kingdom  of  God  may  best  be 
secured  through  the  founding  and  growth  of  na¬ 
tional  churches.”1 

Then  why  should  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  go  contrary  to  the  conviction,  the  judg¬ 
ment,  and  the  purpose  of  all  “the  other  Protest¬ 
ant  bodies”?  There  must  be  something  peculiar 
about  such  a  purpose. 

However,  he  states  that  what  has  been  done 
was  “without  formal  action,”  which  is  equivalent 
to  saying  that  it  was  not  legally  done,  and  that 
means  it  was  not  done  at  all  in  any  way  to  bind 
the  denomination. 

Sometimes  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  determine  ex¬ 
actly  what  is  the  view  of  the  author.  He  uses  the 
word  “international,”  but  we  take  it  that  person¬ 
ally  he  is  not  an  imperialist,  for  his  facts  and  his 

1 The  Next  Step,  p.  11. 


305 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


reasoning  show  that  for  the  foreign  mission  fields 
he  aims  at  very  complete  self-government,  or  in¬ 
dependence,  so  that  the  foreign  mission  in  each 
country  will  he  practically  or  actually  independ¬ 
ent,  each  controlling  itself.  Anything  else  would 
be  inconsistent  with  sound  logic  based  on  his 
facts  and  statements.  The  terrible  events  of 
recent  years  should  warn  us  against  the  “in¬ 
ternational”  in  the  church  or  the  church  in  the 
4  ‘  international.  ’ ’ 

The  author  states  that  “From  the  beginning 
until  long  after  the  church  had  entered  upon  its 
second  century  there  seemed  no  conception,  but 
that,  when  anv  branch  outside  the  borders  of  the 
United  States  had  reached  a  measure  of  self-con¬ 
fidence,  it  should  be  set  apart  as  a  distinct  en¬ 
tity.  ’1  11 

To  some  this  may  seem  a  rather  strong  state¬ 
ment.  In  the  cases  of  Canada  and  Japan,  they 
sought  their  independence,  and  there  was  no  haste 
on  the  part  of  the  church  in  granting  it  to  either 
country.  If  the  statement  was  that  the  church 
possessed  the  power  to  “set  apart’ *  the  foreign 
mission  “as  a  distinct  entity”  it  would  not  be  so 
surprising.  The  writer,  however,  takes  no  ex¬ 
ception  to  the  statement.  The  right  was  admitted. 

The  author  says,  “In  this  day  when  the  very 
words  ‘nationalism’  and  ‘internationalism,’  ‘de¬ 
mocracy,’  ‘self-government,’  and  ‘self-determina¬ 
tion’  are  becoming  focal  for  the  life  of  the  whole 


1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  22. 


30G 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


world,  it  is  no  small  thing  to  see  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  our  church,  alone  in  Protest¬ 
antism  adopting  a  policy  which  may  in  time  give 
it  as  wide-sweeping  an  ecclesiastical  authority  as 
that  of  the  Church  of  Rome.”  Surely,  it  would 
be  no  small  thing,  but  we  do  not  see  the  church 
doing  it  yet.  The  example  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
and  the  practice  of  Protestantism  should  deter 
it  from  such  a  suicidal  course.1 

If  the  author  means  by  that  that  in  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  its  foreign  missions  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church  should  not  endeavor  to  retain  gov¬ 
ernmental  control  and  become  a  world  church, 
with  a  world  government,  we  have  no  objection  to 
tile.  That  is  the  very  thing  the  church  should  not 
be,  for  that  would  lead  to  an  ecclesiastical  govern¬ 
ment  like  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  curse 
both  the  missions  and  the  church. 

Such  a  church  would  be  compelled  to  develop  a 
strongly  centralized  government,  and  distance  and 
increasing  bulk  would  necessitate  a  diminution  of 
representation,  which  in  the  end  would  mean 
growing  strength  at  the  head  center  and  relatively 
increasing  weakness  in  the  remote  mission  in  the 
matter  of  free  local  government,  and,  in  time,  that 
would  mean  a  loss  of  independent  action,  or  a 
revolt,  which  would  cause  the  mission  to  break 
away  from  the  parent  body  at  the  center. 

The  most  of  those  who  are  aiming  at  a  world 
church  will,  if  they  continue,  logically  reach  an 
imperialistic  government  like  that  of  ecclesiastical 


lThe  Next  Step,  p.  16. 


307 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


Rome.  Thev  may  not  see  it  at  first,  and  do  not 
wish  it,  but  as  they  are  going  it  is  inevitable.  It 
is  the  part  of  wisdom  to  open  their  eyes  and  see 
the  truth  at  once. 

The  author  indicates  that  there  are  two  courses, 

one  of  which  must  be  taken;  that  followed  by  the 

Church  of  Rome  and  that  illustrated  bv  the  Brit- 

«/ 

ish  Empire.  He  says:  “If  one  is  willing  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  principle  of  autocracy  in  order  to  secure 
a  world  church  that  works ,  Rome  presents  the  per¬ 
fect  example.”1 

True,  but  we  do  not  want  the  Roman  method. 
Nevertheless,  whether  we  want  it  or  not,  a  world 
church,  with  a  world  government,  would,  in  spite 
of  our  contrary  wishes,  tend  to  a  Romish  central¬ 
ization. 

Then  he  points  to  the  analogy  of  the  British 
Empire.  This  is  far  better,  infinitely  better  than 
Roman  imperialism.  In  the  matter  of  secular  and 
political  government  it  has  been  a  wonderful  and 
happy  development,  but  for  a  religious  govern¬ 
ment,  as  suggested  for  the  foreign  missions,  the 
parallel  is  not  perfect.  Even  the  British  method 
is  not  the  ideal  for  the  church.  Further,  the  Brit¬ 
ish  system  may  not  have  passed  its  final  test, 
though  it  went  through  the  Great  War  so  magnifi¬ 
cently.  Yet  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  matured. 
With  growing  and  strengthening  dominions  and 
present  dependencies  passing  out  of  their  depend¬ 
ent  relation,  no  one  can  say  that  they  will  not  pass 
into  an  absolute  governmental  military  and  eeo- 


1The  Next  Step,  p.  37. 


308 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


nomical  independence  that  will  break  up  the  pres¬ 
ent  combination,  or  place  the  center  of  power  in 
Canada,  in  Australia,  or  at  some  other  geographi¬ 
cal  point,  so  that  Great  Britain  will  no  longer  be 
relatively  the  great  power,  or  even  the  great 
center. 

Of  course  the  British  dominions  and  dependen¬ 
cies  do  not  send  the  same  proportionate  repre¬ 
sentation  to  the  Parliament  in  London  as  do  the 
British  Isles.  That  would  mean  were  the  British 
system  applied  that  the  foreign  mission  would  not 
have  its  old  representation  in  the  General  Confer¬ 
ence,  for  if  the  mother  church  gives  up  its  control 
of  the  mission,  or,  in  other  words,  lets  the  mission 
control  its  own  affairs,  that  would  mean  that  the 
mission  would  cease  to  send  delegates  to  control 
the  mother  church.  In  other  words,  if  the  home 
church  gives  up  control  of  the  foreign  mission 
the  mission  must  not  control  the  mother  church. 

If  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  should  abdicate  her 
supreme  position,  and  simply  become  a  part  of  a 
world  church,  and  the  foreign  missions  became 
parts  of  the  world  church,  and  these  missions  as 
equally  parts  of  this  church  with  proportionate 
power,  as  they  grow  and  their  mass  increases 
would  in  course  of  time  become  proportionately 
greater,  and,  it  is  conceivable,  they  would  greatly 
reduce  the  relative  power  of  the  church  in  the 
United  States,  and,  in  course  of  time,  actually 
overwhelm  the  American  section,  or  shift  the 
center  of  gravity  and  influence  from  America. 

309 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


There  is  a  better  way  than  to  imitate  the  Brit¬ 
ish  Empire,  or  to  have  a  world  government,  and 
that  is  for  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  to  preserve  its  en¬ 
tity  and  identity,  and  let  the  foreign  missions  de¬ 
velop  their  own  organization  and  become  homo¬ 
geneous  and  independent  entities,  but  with  the 
governmental  separation  have  them  bound  to¬ 
gether  by  a  moral  and  religious  affiliation  with  the 
mother  church  in  the  United  States,  as  the  great 
source  of  inspiration  and  the  suggestive  guide  of 
this  moral  and  spiritual  association. 

It  is  unthinkable  that  all  these  varying  off¬ 
spring,  bound  together  in  a  world  church,  can 
grow  on  with  their  own  ambitions,  demanding 
more  and  more  liberty  to  do  as  they  please,  each 
doing,  thinking,  and  believing,  and  working  dif¬ 
ferently,  and  yet  have  a  homogeneous  church 
everywhere,  and  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  not  be  radically 
changed,  but  remain  the  same.  A  world  church, 
in  course  of  time,  must  affect,  change,  and  injure, 
and  perhaps  destroy  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America.  Our  look  must  take  in  more 
than  a  quadrennium  or  two.  It  must  take  in  the 
long  future. 

The  author  presents  some  statistics  which  show 
the  increasing  strength  of  the  foreign  missions 
and  indicate  that  these  missions  are  about  ready 
for  self-support,  self-direction,  and  independence, 
and  this  goes  to  show  that  these  foreign  missions, 
if  independent,  could  carry  on  their  work  as  local 

310 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


or  national  churches,  and  certainly  with  a  little 
help  from  the  home  church.  He  interjects  stric¬ 
tures  upon  the  church  services  and  the  doctrinal 
formulations  of  the  missions,  as  they  have  them 
from  the  mother  church,  and  clearly  reveals  that 
doctrinally  and  formally  he  would  have  the  for¬ 
eign  churches,  and,  presumably,  his  world  church, 
very  different  from  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  to-day  and  of  the  past. 

Thus,  he  says:  “It  is  questionable  whether  the 
church  in  these  lands  will  forever  require  as  a 
test  of  membership  acceptance  of  such  an  exotic 
document  as  The  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  vitality  in  a  World 
Church  built  upon  such  a  foundation.”1 

The  author  admits  that  to  have  a  Methodist 
Episcopal  world  church  will  compel  the  sacrifice 
of  doctrinal  standards.  In  view  of  that,  he  says : 
“I  think  that  finally  one  of  the  costs  of  a  world 
church  that  we  will  have  to  face  and  pay  is  the 
return  to  doctrinal  standards  so  simple  that  any 
child  can  understand  them  and  so  reasonable  that 
any  child  will  accept  them.  We  will  have  to  swing 
away  from  that  monument  of  Anglo-Saxon  Prot¬ 
estantism  which  John  Wesley,  in  a  moment  of 
anxiety  when  he  felt  his  grip  slipping,  wished  upon 
the  Methodists  of  America.”2 

In  this  he  particularly  refers  to  the  Articles  of 
Religion,  though  his  phrasing  is  all-comprehen¬ 
sive,  and  means  much  more  than  the  Article.  To 

'The  Next  Step,  pp.  94,  95. 

2lbid.,  p.  95.  , 


311 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


call  these  Articles  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  “that  monument  of  Anglo-Saxon  Prot¬ 
estantism’  ’  seems  to  demand  some  qualification. 
Even  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  English  Re¬ 
formed  Religion  were  the  result  of  the  labors  of 
Continental  as  well  as  English  theologians.  So 
they  might  be  called  a  monument  of  world  Protest¬ 
antism,  but  the  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion 
of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  very  dif¬ 
ferent,  and  belong  to  a  much  later  period,  and  it 
is  therefore,  incorrect  to  say  that  “John  Wesley, 
in  a  moment  of  anxiety  when  he  felt  his  grip  slip¬ 
ping,  wished  [that  monument  of  Anglo-Saxon 
Protestantism]  upon  the  Methodists  of  America,  ’  ’ 
and  his  closing  statement  is  not  justified  by  the 
history. 

The  author  plainly  states  his  desire  and  evident 
purpose  to  banish  from  the  foreign  mission  the 
public  religious  services  of  The  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Church,  and  the  Articles  of  Religion  of  the 
said  church,  but  he  nowhere  tells  us  explicitly,  or 
tells  us  in  any  way,  just  what  he  would,  or  will 
put  in  their  place.  One  thing,  however,  is  per¬ 
fectly  plain,  namely,  that  he  would  not  have  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  system,  for  he  would 
abandon  the  services  and  abandon  the  Articles  of 
Religion  of  this  church,  and  he  makes  it  doubtful 
whether  he  would  have  any  expressed  or  formu¬ 
lated  doctrines  at  all. 

That  seems  to  be  what  he  means  when  he  says 
that  we  must  pay  “one  of  the  costs  of  a  world 
church”  by  giving  up  the  present  “doctrinal 

312 


AND  ITS  FOEEIGN  MISSIONS 


standards,”  and  taking  up  those  that  are  “so 
simple  that  any  child  .  .  .  [any  child?]  .  .  . 
can  understand  them.”  Anything  that  any  child 
could  understand  would  be  very  inadequate  for  a 
church  of  mature  people. 

Thus,  with  great  clearness,  and  positiveness,  he 
declares  in  favor  of  demanding  no  religious  opin¬ 
ions  at  all,  which  he  asserts  was  Wesley’s  way, 
but  when  he  asserts,  or  suggests,  that  that  was 
Wesley’s  way,  he  misunderstands  and  misrepre¬ 
sents  Weslev,  and  makes  him  contradict  himself 
in  word  and  practice.  Every  now  and  then  Wes¬ 
ley  is  quoted  in  support  of  radical  liberalism, 
when  the  quotations  have  been  wrested  from  their 
immediate  connection,  or  from  the  general,  habit¬ 
ual,  and  specific  utterances  of  Wesley  throughout 
his  life.  This  amounts  to  a  practical  and  actual 
misrepresentation.  The  author  seems  to  have 
been  caught  by  some  of  the  current  clippings  from 
utterances  of  Wesley,  which  were  very  real  mis¬ 
representations  of  Wesley  because  they  were  in¬ 
complete  quotations,  or  were  taken  out  of  their 
qualifying  connection,  or  were  not  placed  in  the 
light  of  Wesley’s  established  action  and  general 
teachings. 

If  one  makes  an  utterance  that  is  lacking  in 
clearness,  or  without  his  usual  and  consistent 
method,  or  if  it  seems  so,  he  is  entitled  to  have  it 
construed  in  the  light  of  his  clear  habitual  and 
deliberate  utterances.  So  Wesley’s  utterances, 
occasional  or  otherwise,  should  be  taken  together, 
and  all  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  what 

313 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


may  be  called  his  standard  statements  and  his 
habitual  action.  But,  to  bolster  up  his  announced 
positions  the  author  attempts  to  drag  in  John 
Wesley,  an  apostle  of  the  long-time-ago,  as  a  val¬ 
iant  knight  who  battled  for  these  present  conten¬ 
tions,  and  he  says:  “We  will  have  to  swing  back 
to  that  truer  basis  which  Wesley  expressed  when 
he  wrote:  ‘The  distinguishing  marks  of  a  Meth¬ 
odist  are  not  his  opinions  of  any  sort.  ...  Is  thy 
heart  right,  as  my  heart  is  with  thine?  ...  If 
it  be,  give  me  thy  hand.  *  ’ n 

Now,  Wesley  was  not  a  man  who  cared  nothing 
about  opinions.  He  was  a  man  of  opinions,  and 
was  most  positive  in  his  opinions.  His  whole  life 
shows  that.  More  than  that,  he  expected  right 
opinions  on  religious  or  theological  opinions 
from  others,  and  especially  demanded  them  from 
those  associated  with  himself.  That  being  the 
case,  there  must  be  some  qualification  of  any  ex¬ 
pression  that  at  first  sight  makes  the  impression 
that  he  was  indifferent  to  the  opinions  which 
others  held,  and,  particularly,  as  to  the  'opinions 
of  the  preachers  and  people  of  his  own  societies. 
Plainly,  he  could  not  use  the  word  ‘  ‘  opinions  ’  ’  in 
the  lax  fashion  of  those  who  do  not  fully  or  fairly 
represent  him.  Back  of  the  special  and  qualified 
use  of  the  word  “ opinion,’ ’  was  a  very  positive 
theological  creed. 

The  quotation  which  the  author  gives  from 
Wesley  is  entirely  inadequate  either  as  represen¬ 
tative  of  Wesley,  or  of  the  document  from  which 

1 The  Next  Step,  p.  95.  (See  2  Kings  10.  15.) 

314 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

he  quotes.  The  Character  of  a  Methodist,  which 
Wesley  published  in  1742,  early  in  his  career, 
makes  six  closely  printed  octavo  pages.  From  this 
he  takes  about  half  a  dozen  detached  lines,  quoting 
the  opening  sentence,  and  then  a  few  lines,  toward 
the  end,  thus  leaving  out  nearly  all  the  publication 
in  which  Wesley  qualifies  and  elaborates  his 
points. 

Thus  the  author  of  The  Next  Step  quotes  “The 
distinguishing  marks  of  a  Methodist  are  not  his 
opinions  of  any  sort.”  This  is  the  first  sentence 
of  the  first  paragraph,  but,  in  that  very  para¬ 
graph,  Wesley  goes  on  to  say:  “We  believe,  in¬ 
deed,  that  ‘all  Scripture  is  given  by  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  God/  and  herein  we  are  distinguished 
from  Jews,  Turks,  and  Infidels.  We  believe  the 
written  Word  of  God  to  be  the  only  and  sufficient 
rule  both  of  Christian  faith  and  practice;  and 
herein  we  are  fundamentally  distinguished  from 
those  of  the  Roman  Church.  We  believe  Christ 
to  be  the  eternal,  supreme  God ;  and  herein  we  are 
distinguished  from  the  Socinians  and  Arians.  But 
as  to  all  opinions  which  do  not  strike  at  the  root 
of  Christianity,  we  think  and  let  think.”1  That 
is  what  Wesley  meant,  and  said,  and  the  omission 
of  these  qualifications  grossly  misrepresents  Wes¬ 
ley,  who  said  very  much  more  in  the  same  line  in 
his  forty-nine  active  years  which  followed. 

Now,  the  fact  is  that  the  citation  from  Wesley 


lJohn  Wesley,  The  Character  of  a  Methodist,  Wesley’s  Works, 
Amer.  Ed.,  New  York,  vol  v.,  pp.  240,  241. 

315 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


does  not  belittle  “opinions  of  any  sort.”  It 
merely  says  that  “the  distinguishing  marks  of  a 
Methodist  are  not  his  opinions.”  It  does  not  say 
that  he  does  not  care  what  opinions  his  members 
hold,  but  that  mere  opinions  are  not  the  “distin¬ 
guishing  marks.”  Of  course  the  “distinguishing 
marks”  are  found  in  the  religious  character  and 
the  spiritual  life,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  no 
religious  opinions  are  necessary.  On  the  contrary, 
opinions  and  beliefs  are  at  the  very  basis  of  re¬ 
ligious  living. 

What  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  liberality,  which 
means,  It  makes  no  difference  about  creeds,  or 
what  you  believe,  can  never  be  sustained  by  Wes¬ 
ley  and  his  teachings.  The  changes  have  been 
rung  on  “Is  thine  heart  right,  as  my  heart  is  with 
thy  heart?  .  .  .  If  it  be,  give  me  thine  hand.” 
Some  evidently  have  no  distinct  idea  of  their 
meaning,  and  some  use  them  as  though  they  were 
Wesley’s  own  words,  when  they  are,  in  fact,  a 
quotation  from  2  Kings  10. 15,  though  the  citations 
do  not  always  harmonize  with  the  text  in  Kings. 

The  author  takes  them  up  and  gives  them 
another  ring,  though  we  would  not  like  to  say  that 
he  thought  Wesley  invented  the  words  and 
phrases.  At  the  same  time  one  might  wonder,  if  he  . 
remembered  that  one  of  Wesley’s  printed  sermons 
is  on  that  text,  and  that  in  it  Wesley  shows  what 
he  meant  by  the  scripture  which  he  used.  In  this 
sermon  he  shows  there  was  not  intended  any  of  the 
radical  liberalism  that  the  author  is  proposing 
to  incorporate  in  the  missions  in  heathen  lands. 

316 


AND  ITS  FOEEIGN  MISSIONS 


Wesley  shows  that  the  right  heart  must  have 
right  opinions  and  firm  convictions — must  have 
right  belief,  right  living,  and  right  internal  ex¬ 
periences.  In  the  sermon  on  this  text  he  says :  “Is 
thy  heart  right  with  God!  Dost  thou  believe  his 
being  and  his  perfection!  .  .  .  Hast  thou  a 

divine  evidence,  a  supernatural  conviction  of  the 
things  of  God!  .  .  .  Dost  thou  believe  in  the 

Lord  Jesus  Christ,  ‘God  over  all,  blessed  for¬ 
ever!’  Is  he  revealed  in  thy  soul!  Dost  thou 
know  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified!” 

Here  in  God  is  the  foundation  of  theology.  Here 
in  Christ  is  the  foundation  of  Christian  theology. 
The  right  heart  implies  a  right  theology  which 
embraces  Christ  as  “God  over  all.”  There  is 
nothing  in  this  that  teaches  that  religious  opinion 
is  valueless  or  unnecessary.  On  the  contrary, 
Wesley  implied  many  doctrinal  convictions. 

Deferring  to  the  phrase  “a  catholic  spirit,” 
Wesley  says:  “There  is  scarce  any  expression 
which  has  been  more  grossly  misunderstood,  and 
more  dangerously  applied  than  this,”  and,  then, 
capping  the  climax,  he  says:  “It  is  not  an  in¬ 
difference  to  ojnnions;  this  is  the  spawn  of  hell, 
not  the  offspring  of  heaven.”  “This  unsettledness 
of  thought,  this  being  ‘driven  to  and  fro,  and 
tossed  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,’  is  a 
great  curse,  not  a  blessing;  an  irreconcilable 
enemy,  not  a  friend  to  true  Catholicism.  A  man 
of  a  truly  catholic  spirit  has  not  now  his  religion 
to  seek.  He  is  fixed  as  the  sun,  in  his  judgment 
concerning  the  main  branches  of  Christian  doc- 

,  317 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


trine.”  Wesley  evidently  was  not  a  latitudinar- 
ian.1 

Let  anyone  who  is  tempted  to  say,  or  imagine, 
that  Wesley  was  indifferent  to  religions  opinions 
ponder  these  weighty  words  which  contradict 
certain  views  that  seek  currency,  and  which  we  are 
now  controverting.  These  misrepresentations  of 
Wesley  I  have  treated  and  their  falseness  exposed 
at  some  length  in  my  work  on  The  Doctrinal  Stand¬ 
ards  of  Methodism.2 

John  Wesley  was  liberal,  but  he  was  not  a  lati- 
tudinarian.  He  was  an  evangelical  liberal,  but, 
with  charitable  liberality,  he  held  positive  be¬ 
liefs  and  demanded  them  from  others  in  his  eccle¬ 
siastical  organization.  Some  have  tried  to  affirm 
that  he  asked  no  doctrinal  beliefs  of  those  who 
were  admitted  into  his  societies.  The  author 
quotes  Wesley  as  saying:  “One  circumstance 
more  is  quite  peculiar  to  the  people  called  Method¬ 
ists;  that  is,  the  terms  upon  which  any  person 
may  be  admitted  to  their  society.  They  do  not 
impose,  in  order  to  their  admission,  any  opinions 
whatsoever.  .  .  .  One  condition  and  one  onlv 

is  required — a  real  desire  to  save  their  soul.”  “Or 
again:  ‘Is  a  man  a  believer  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
is  his  life  suitable  to  his  profession?’  are  not 
only  the  main ,  but  the  sole  inquiries  I  make  in 
order  to  his  admission  into  our  society.”3  So 

Lesley's  sermon  on  the  “Catholic  Spirit”  (Sermon  Number 
XXXIX). 

’Bishop  Thomas  B.  Neely,  Doctrinal  Standards  of  Meth¬ 
odism,  pp.  82,  83.  New  York;  Fleming  H.  Revell  Company. 

*The  Next  Step,  p.  96. 


318 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Wesley  states  that  he  demands  that  the  candidate 
shall  be  a  4 ‘believer  in  Jesus  Christ.”  That  means 
very  much.  It  carries  with  it  belief  in  God,  and 
in  Christ,  and  connects  with  many  other  beliefs. 
So  the  statement  that  there  was  only  one  condi¬ 
tion  for  admission  into  Wesley’s  society,  namely, 
“a  desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to 
be  saved  from  their  sins,”  needs  some  elucida¬ 
tion.  Some  say  there  is  no  creed  or  belief  in  that, 
but,  to  have  that  desire,  the  individuual  must  be¬ 
lieve  in  sin,  in  the  wrath,  or  judgment  to  come,  in 
salvation  from  sin  and  the  penalty  for  sin,  in 
God  who  judges  and  condemns,  and  in  a  Saviour 
who  can  and  will  save,  and  these  logically  carry 
with  them  many  other  beliefs  that  together  would 
make  a  long  and  comprehensive  creed,  and  Wes¬ 
ley  said  he  did  ask :  “Is  a  man  a  believer  in  Jesus 
Christ,  and  is  his  life  suitable  to  his  profession.” 
It  was  a  comprehensive  test  involving  opinions, 
and  faith  in  Christ. 

The  fact  is  that  the  very  liberal  conditions  for 
admission  into  Wesley’s  Society  referred  simply 
to  the  initial  admission,  just  as  we  have  very  light 
requirements  for  admission  on  probation,  or,  as 
they  now  say,  into  “preparatory  membership.” 
Beyond  that,  Wesley  and  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  have  been  very  strict  in  regard  to 
doctrinal  matters,  for  what  is  regarded  as  “full 
membership.”  Wesley  had  a  stage,  or  stages, 
beyond  the  initial  admission,  where  there  were 
additional  rights  and  privileges.  For  this  ad¬ 
vancement  Wesley  demands  more  than  he  asked 

319 


i 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


at  the  beginning.1  Then  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  Wesley’s  Society  at  that  time  was  not  a 
church. 

It  is  simply  absurd  to  say  that  Wesley  cared 
nothing  for  religious  opinions,  or  doctrines,  when 
he  was  the  man  who  prepared  the  Articles  of  Re¬ 
ligion  for  his  followers,  not  simply  copying  pre¬ 
existing  Articles  of  Religion,  but  making  a  re¬ 
study  and  a  revision  of  old  Articles  by  elimina¬ 
tion  and  modification,  so  that  they  said  something 
different  from  the  old  forms,  and  while  they  had 
a  heritage  from  a  noble  past  they  were  essentially 
new  Articles  for  a  new  development  of  the  church. 

The  author  would  eliminate  the  Articles  of  Re¬ 
ligion.  As  he  says,  “We  will  have  to  swing  away 
from  that  monument  of  Anglo-Saxon  Protestant¬ 
ism.”2 

Well,  even  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng¬ 
land  and  certain  formularies  of  Continental 
Protestantism,  he  would  speak  of  as  a  mere  monu¬ 
ment,  but  they  are  more  than  a  monument.  They 
still  live  with  power,  while  Wesley’s  Articles  can¬ 
not  be  fairly  classified  as  a  mere  “monument  of 
Anglo-Saxon  Protestantism.”  Centuries  had 
passed  since  the  Anglo-Saxon  times,  and  a  new 
and  vitalizing  breath  had  breathed  on  those  Wes¬ 
ley  had  prepared.  Yet  the  author  says:  “It  will 
probably  be  possible  to  make  men  swear  that  they 
believe  in  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  those  Articles 

JBishop  Thomas  B.  Neely,  The  Only  Condition;  and  Bishop 
Thomas  B.  Neely:  Doctrinal  Standards  of  Methodism. 

2The  Next  Step,  p.  55. 


.320 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


for  years  to  come.  But  to  what  purpose?  The 
fact  is  not  altered  that  those  Articles  are  utterly 
foreign  to  the  spirit  and  genius  and  understanding 
of  the  Chinese  Christian.”1 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  Christianity  is 
“foreign  to  the  spirit  and  genius  and  understand¬ 
ing”  of  the  heathen  mind;  and  if  missions  in 
foreign  and  pagan  countries  are  to  omit  all  that  is 
Christian  because  the  people  find  it  difficult  to  com¬ 
prehend  Christianity,  the  mission  will  have  no 
Christian  mission  to  heathen  people.  However,  it 
is  known  that  peoples,  once  non-Christian,  have 
learned  to  understand,  and  have  intelligently  ac¬ 
cepted  the  religion  of  the  Christ.  The  Chinese 
and  Indian  mind  can  do  the  same.  Then  he  makes 
his  fling  at  “the  recitation  of  the  Apostles’ 
Creed,”  which  he  styles  “another  exotic,”  which 
he  seems  to  forget  Wesley  accepted  and  incorpor¬ 
ated  in  the  formularies  of  Methodism,  and  which 
was  placed  under  the  constitutional  protection  of 
The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  If  the  author 
takes  a  casual  remark  of  John  Wesley,  and  cites 
the  detached  remark  as  against  creed  or  doctrine, 
why  does  he  spurn  the  deliberate  formulations 
and  indorsement  of  the  same  Wesley?  This  is  in¬ 
consistent  treatment  of  Wesley,  and  is  as  unfair 
as  inconsistent. 

The  author’s  aim  seems  to  be  to  make  a  church 
that  will  be  very  unlike  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  from  his  indefinite  statements  one 
may  well  wonder  what  kind  of  a  church  it  will  be, 

1 The  Next  Step  p.  97. 

,  321 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and,  particularly  what  kind  of  a  Christian  church 
it  can  be.  With  his  discarding  of  historic  and  es¬ 
tablished  creeds,  he  leaves  things  uncertain  and 
chaotic  in  the  mind  of  his  reader,  and,  even  if  it 
is  not  absolutely  and  certainly  bad,  it  must  seem 
that  a  creedless  church  would  be  a  spineless 
church. 

What  kind  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
would  be  left?  The  title  might  remain,  but  what 
else  ?  With  the  Apostles  ’  Creed  put  in  the  discard, 
with  the  Articles  of  Religion  gone,  and  the  Meth- 
odistic  services  abandoned,  who  would  think  it 
was  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  Unfortu¬ 
nately,  there  is  no  definite  assurance  that  any¬ 
thing  as  good  would  come  out  of  this  indefinite 
project. 

That  he  meditates  elimination  and  probable  de¬ 
struction  of  many  historic  and  established  things 
seems  quite  clear,  for,  touching  ‘  ‘  the  precedent  of 
holding  every  part  of  a  church,  wherever  located, 
to  a  conformance  with  the  doctrinal  expressions 
and  forms  in  every  other  part,”  he  says:  “In¬ 
creasingly  I  am  convinced  that  the  successful 
democratic  world  church  will  have  to  break  the 
trammels  of  this  tradition.”  But  this  is  some¬ 
thing  more  than  a  mere  tradition,  and  a  church 
organization  implies  a  common  constitution  to 
which  all  must  conform.  If  he  wants  the  foreign 
missions  to  be  doctrinally  different  he  cannot  have 
that  in  an  organized  world  church,  that  is  really 
a  church  with  a  Constitution,  and  he  cannot  have 
it  under  the  present  church  organization.  A 

322 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

church  must  have  one  constitution  for  all  and  can¬ 
not  have  different  parts  holding  different  vital 
doctrines  in  opposition. 

These  assertions  make  not  for  a  world  church, 
which  implies  one  government,  but  for  separation 
and  independence  that  will  permit  the  mission  in 
every  country  to  differ  from  every  other  part  and 
each  mission  to  have  whatever  it  wants  in  church 
order,  church  service,  and  religious  doctrine.  It 
thus  provides  for  its  own  disruption.  Surely,  he 
does  not  expect  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
to  be  responsible  for  these  un-Methodistie 
changes,  and  for  the  resulting  evolution  or  de¬ 
volution  of  the  foreign  missions.  If  this  should 
be  “The  Next  Step,”  it  seems  perfectly  plain 
that  it  would  be  a  false  step. 

The  author  asserts  that  The  Methodist  Episco¬ 
pal  Church  is  heading  toward  an  international 
organization,  and  that  “Apparently  The  Method¬ 
ist  Episcopal  Church  is  committed  to  a  develop¬ 
ment  as  an  international  entity.”1  With  that  we 
cannot  agree,  for  the  church  has  not  definitely 
and  legally  said  so ;  but,  if  this  be  so  or  if  persons 
are  trying  to  bring  this  about,  then  preachers  and 
people  will  do  well  to  be  alarmed,  for  the  liberties 
of  the  church  are  in  danger. 

That  would  mean  a  world-wide  aggregation  of 
power  which  would  result  in  a  loss  of  local  and 
general  freedom  through  an  increase  of  power  at 
the  center,  which  might  be  a  shifting  center,  and 
a  steady  diminution  of  the  proportionate  repre- 

1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  21. 

'  323 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


sentation,  and,  also,  at  the  same  time,  in  a  serious 
confusion,  growing  out  of  developing  differences 
in  the  various  countries,  which  would  result  in 
internal  conflicts  which  would  tend  to  the  disin¬ 
tegration  of  the  combination,  and,  perhaps  to  a 
collapse  of  the  work  itself. 

The  mother  church  would  be  endangered,  first, 
because  of  the  evils  which  would  be  evolved  at  the 
seat  of  the  centralized  ecclesiastical  power;  and, 
secondly,  because,  sooner  or  later,  it  would  be 
affected  injuriously  by  the  heterogeneous  forces 
in,  and  exerted  by  the  growing  churches  in  dis¬ 
tant  lands;  while  the  indigenous  churches  in  the 
many  countries,  made  up  of  different  races  with 
different  languages  and  different  histories,  would 
find  their  racial  or  national  individuality  inter¬ 
fered  with,  and  the  ultimate  tendency  would  be  to 
break  away  from  each  other,  and  to  form  inde¬ 
pendent  and,  perhaps,  inharmonious  national 
churches. 

A  world-wide  international  church  organization 
would  be  a  danger  ending  in  disaster.  It  cannot 
solve  the  problems  arising  out  of  distance,  differ¬ 
ences  in  peoples,  and  nationalistic  feelings  which 
naturally  long  for  independence,  and  rebel  against 
submersion  in  a  government  under  other  peoples. 

The  author  at  times  seems  to  argue  this  way, 
and  reiterates  his  declaration  that:  “It  is  impos¬ 
sible  for  anybody  to  legislate  intelligently  for  the 
life  of  a  church  half  a  world  away.”1 

That  is  in  harmony  with  Bishop  Asbury’s  state- 

1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  59. 

324 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


ment  that  Wesley,  three  thousand  miles  away, 
could  not  administer  Methodism  in  America.  In 
this  particular  the  author  stands  on  firm  ground, 
but  it  carries  with  it  an  implication,  which  is 
clearly  against  his  idea  of  a  world-wide,  or  inter¬ 
national  church.  If  the  church  in  the  United 
States  is  too  far  away  to  “legislate  intelligently ’ ’ 
for  China,  India,  or  Africa,  then  China,  India, 
and  Africa,  and  other  countries,  are  too  far  away 
to  legislate  for  the  church  in  the  United  States, 
and  the  idea  of  a  world-wide  international  eccle¬ 
siastical  government  involves  a  false  principle 
and  is  unworkable. 

The  question  the  author  raises  is:  “How  are 
the  parts  of  the  church  that  have  grown  up  con¬ 
tinents  distant  from  the  original  ‘home’  to  be 
freed  from  long  distance  control  and  given  the 
shaping  of  their  own  destiny?  The  demands  of 
efficiency — to  consider  the  subject  on  no  higher 
level — require  that  such  a  change  shall  speedily 
come.  It  is  impossible  for  any  body  to  legislate 
intelligently  for  the  life  of  a  church  half  a  world 
away.  ’ n 

If  this  is  correct,  and  there  is  force  in  the  ques¬ 
tion  and  in  the  statement  based  upon  it,  a 
world-wide  international  church  does  not  meet 
the  difficulty.  The  countries  and  places  still  exist, 
and  are  supposed  to  be  in  this  ecclesiastical  in¬ 
ternational,  and  the  great  distances  remain  just 
the  same,  and  each  mission  continues  to  be  under 
the  control  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  that  continue  to 
1 The  Next  Step,  pp.  58,  59. 

'  325 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


be  4 4 half  a  world  away,”  and  the  mission  is  not 
free  from  distant  power  and  from  government  by 
distant  and  different  people.  The  only  thing  that 
will  free  the  mission  4 4 from  long  distance  control” 
and  give  the  missions  4  4  the  shaping  of  their  own 
destiny,”  is  to  give  the  mission  and  the  missions 
governmental  independence. 

It  is  absurd  to  think  that  a  body  can  be  in  a 
world-wide  international  church,  with  a  common 
government  over  all,  and  yet  that  each  individual 
body  shall  be  under  no  control,  but  be  absolutely 
free  to  do  as  it  pleases.  Under  the  common  govern¬ 
ment  all  are  governed,  and  no  part  can  be  entirely 
independent.  If  all  in  the  combination  have  no 
respect  for  the  international  government,  and  all 
are  doing  as  they  please,  and  are  doing  differ¬ 
ently,  then  there  is  no  common  government  but 
governmental  chaos. 

The  world-wide  church  would  not  free  any  part 
4 4 from  long  distance  control,”  and  if  all  the  vari¬ 
ations  and  contradictions  that  have  been  sug¬ 
gested  were  made  actual,  evidently  it  must  not  be 
expected  that  the  mother  church  shall  continue  re¬ 
sponsible  for  what  the  distant  body  does,  while, 
on  the  principle  of  freedom  from  4  4  long  distance 
control,”  the  mother  church  in  the  United  States 
must  withdraw  from  all  governmental  relation. 
On  the  theory  presented,  it  would  be  too  far  away, 
and  all  would  be  too  far  from  each  other. 

Further,  it  is  just  as  logical  that  the  distant  and 
self-governing  body  shall  not  have  any  control 
over  the  mother  church,  by  delegation  or  other- 

326 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 

wise.  The  distant  body  is  just  as  far  away  from 
the  mother  church  as  the  mother  church  is  distant 
from  it,  and  as  he  says:  “It  is  impossible  for 
any  body  to  legislate  intelligently  for  the  life  of 
a  church  half  a  world  away.”  If  the  distant  mis¬ 
sion  should  have  self-control,  and  not  be  governed 
by  the  mother  church,  then  the  mother  church 
should  have  self-control  and  the  mission  in  the 
foreign  country  should  not  in  any  degree,  or  in 
any  way,  control  the  home  church. 

Bishop  Thoburn,  in  1884,  when  he  was  Doctor 
James  M.  Thoburn,  declared  that  the  mother 
church  in  the  United  States,  could  not  legislate 
for  the  foreign  missions,  and  that  they  should 
have  home  rule.  Logically,  that  meant  they  should 
have  independence,  but,  if  each  mission  were  in¬ 
dependent,  there  could  not  be  a  world- wide  church 
with  the  missions  and  the  home  church  in  it,  for  to 
have  a  world  church  there  must  be  a  common  gov- 
*  ernment  covering  all  to  hold  the  parts  to¬ 
gether. 

Then  it  is  plain  that  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  could  not  be  in  a  world-wide  ecclesiastical 
combination  without  loss  and  injury  in  the  com¬ 
bine.  If  it  did  not  control  the  parts,  the  parts 
would  control  it,  and,  if  it  were  controlled  by  the 
organizations  in  other  countries,  many  of  them 
thousands  of  miles,  or  half  a  world  away,  the 
mother  church  in  the  United  States  would  be  modi¬ 
fied  by  them,  and  through  the  control  of  those  in 
the  foreign  lands,  the  mother  church  would  cease 
to  be  an  American  church,  and  would  lose  its  real 

327 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


independence.  This  would  be  one  of  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  becoming  a  world  church. 

The  author’s  idea  of  a  world-wide  church  would 
sink  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  from  its  chief  and  in¬ 
dependent  position  to  a  merely  sectional  part  of 
the  international  scheme,  and  this  he  concedes 
when  he  proposes  “A  Central  Conference  for  the 
United  States.”  In  other  words  it  would  mean 
that  the  great  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  the  creator  of  the  for¬ 
eign  missions,  would  drop  down  to  the  level  of  a 
“Central  Mission  Conference,”  in  an  uncertain 
international  medley  that  it  would  cease  to  con¬ 
trol,  but  which  would  control  it. 

This  would  not  only  change  the  American  na¬ 
ture  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but,  as 
he  reveals,  that  the  international  idea  would  carry 
the  General  Conference  out  of  the  United  States 
of  America  and  into  remote  parts  of  the  proposed 
world  church,  and,  so,  referring  to  the  General 
Conference,  the  author  says :  “It  will  not  be  re¬ 
stricted  to  meeting  in  the  United  States,  for  it 
represents  a  world  body.”1 

One  may  easily  imagine  the  lack  of  unity  and 
the  possibility  of  conflict  in  such  a  world-wide 
scheme.  It  makes  it  possible  for  the  thirty  coun¬ 
tries,  more  or  less,  each  having  what  it  wants  and 
doing  as  it  likes,  to  make  the  world  church,  or  in¬ 
ternational  church,  a  conglomerate  of  confusion 
without  any  reliable  cohesion.  To  consider  The 


1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  101. 


328 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
as  responsible  for  such  a  composite  of  possible, 
and  probable  contradictions  would  be  the  height  of 
absurdity,  and  could  only  be  possible  through  a 
pronounced  degree  of  ignorance,  recklessness,  or 
insanity. 

Another  important  fact  should  be  considered, 
namely,  that  sooner  or  later  the  world  church 
would  overwhelm  the  mother  church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  As  the  outlying  missions  in 
thirty  or  fifty  nations  grow  they  tend  to  a  numeri¬ 
cal  preponderance.  The  author  perceives  that 
when  he  says:  “I  think  it  altogether  likely  that 
before  the  end  of  this  century  there  will  be  many 
more  members  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  outside  than  inside  the  borders  of  the 
United  States.”1 

On  his  own  showing,  the  international  church, 
with  the  home  church  in  it,  means  the  submerging 
of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  that  event  would  not  be 
far  away,  for  a  single  human  life  can  span  from 
the  present  to  “the  end  of  this  century.”  What 
an  unwieldy  body  the  international  world-wide 
church  would  be  long  before  that  time,  anyone 
may  easily  see. 

Internationalism  may  seem  to  be  a  fine  senti¬ 
ment  for  the  theorizer,  but  it  is  a  danger  in  the 
church  as  well  as  in  the  state.  We  may  love  our 
neighbor,  but  we  cannot  abandon  our  identity  or 
our  individuality,  and  individuality  has  its  place 


t 


1 The  Next  Step ,  p.  115. 


329 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


among  the  nations  and  churches,  as  well  as  among 
persons. 

The  world  may  be  relatively  small,  but  it  is  too 
large  for  only  one  government,  either  political  or 
ecclesiastical.  We  must  remember  the  immensity 
of  population  and  the  stretch  of  geographic  dis¬ 
tances,  we  must  remember  the  differences  of  race 
and  history,  and  everywhere  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  native  and  foreigner,  and,  in  addition,  the 
natural  desire  of  every  people  to  govern  them¬ 
selves.  These  things  prove  the  hopelessness  of 
having  one  government  for  the  whole  world. 

The  case  for  self-government  in  foreign  mis¬ 
sions  has  great  strength,  and  the  local  extent  of 
the  government  may  be  determined  by  race,  by 
environment  or  by  national  history. 

In  this  matter  the  original  mother  church  must 
have  careful  consideration.  With  increasing  and 
spreading  foreign  missions  in  many  parts  of  the 
world,  the  burden  continues  to  become  heavier. 
As  the  missions  become  independent  the  burden 
may  be  shifted. 

To  combine  present  and  prospective  foreign 
missions  in  a  complex  international  eoclesiasti- 
cism,  even  with  the  mother  church  in  it,  would  not 
relieve  the  home  church  but  would  add  to  its  bur¬ 
dens  and  multiply  its  dangers,  while  for  the  mis¬ 
sions  themselves  the  arrangement,  because  of 
nationalistic  aspirations,  and  differences  of  blood, 
of  training  and  history,  could  not  have  a  per¬ 
manent  and  beneficial  result. 

The  true  plan  is  for  each  mission  to  have  self- 

330 


AND  ITS  FOREIGN  MISSIONS 


government  and  independence,  and  to  have  the 
living  influence  of  the  mother  church  go  out  to 
each  and  all,  and  hold  them  in  affiliation  as  with 
a  moral  bond,  and  at  the  same  time  aid  them  in 
various  ways,  even  giving  its  money  under  judi¬ 
cious  conditions,  as  from  time  to  time  may  be 
deemed  best.. 

We  have  had,  and  now  have,  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
with  missions  in  foreign  lands.  As  such  it  is  a 
distinct  and  independent  entity,  and  this  distinct¬ 
ness  and  independence  of  this  American  church 
must  be  preserved,  no  matter  what  may  happen 
to  other  bodies,  but  its  true  status  cannot  be  pre¬ 
served  if  it  is  plunged  into  an  international  world 
church,  or  controlled  or  limited  in  any  way  or  de¬ 
gree  by  the  people  of  other  lands. 

The  mother  church  need  not  expect  to  continue 
in  perpetual  control  of  peoples  of  other  races  and 
nationalities  in  distant  lands  who  have  as  much 
right  to  be  independent  as  the  Christian  Church 
in  any  land,  and,  on  the  other  hand  the  people  of 
those  lands  should  not  seek  to  control  the  church 
in  America,  in  any  way  or  any  degree,  and  the 
mother  church  should  not  permit  any  force 
to  plunge  her  into  an  international  whirlpool, 
or  to  take  from  her  any  portion  of  her  independ¬ 
ence. 

The  next  step  should  not  be  a  false  step,  for  a 
false  step  at  this  time  may  be  disastrous.  Another 
false  step  may  be  into  a  quicksand.  If  wrong 
steps  have  been  taken,  then  the  church  must  halt 

-  331 


THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 


and  at  once  get  back  into  the  right  path.  Another 
false  step  may  result  in  a  catastrophe. 

The  right  course  is  to  preserve  The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  as  an  absolutely  independent  American 
church,  and  at  the  same  time  to  send  the  gospel 
1  ‘ into  all  the  world.” 


332 


\ 


INDEX 


A 

Amendment  to  Third  Restric¬ 
tive  Rule,  1856,  121 

Amendment  to  Third  Restric¬ 
tive  Rule  not  in  Discipline  of 
1860-1864-1868,  122 

Amendment  to  Third  Restric¬ 
tive  Rule  incorrect  as  printed 
in  Discipline  of  1872,  123 

Andrews,  Bishop  Edward  G., 
editor  of  Discipline  of  1892, 
corrects  in  Amendment,  124 

Annual  Conferences  first  central 
authority,  86 

Annual  Conference,  first  1773, 
53 

Apostles’  Creed  to  be  sacrificed 
to  world  Methodism,  322 

“Apostolic  Succession”  not  held, 
96 

Asbury,  Bishop  Francis,  40 

Asbury  on  Wesley’s  relation  to 
the  church,  56 

Authority  of  church,  central 
seat,  85,  86 

B 

Bacon,  Leonard  Woolsey,  on 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
45 

Baltimore,  35 

Bangs,  Nathan,  quoted  on  Can¬ 
ada,  77 

“Bishop,”  title  first  used  in 
1787,  99 


Bishop  or  Superintendent  out  of 
authority  when  not  in  United 
States,  116 

“Bishops  in  Asia”  inviting  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference,  90 
Bishops  in  Asia,  meeting  of,  157 
Bishops  in  Asia  in  their  fields,  161 
Bishops  and  resuming  work  in 
the  South  after  the  Civil 
War,  201,  202 

Bishop  Bashford’s  work  in 
China,  262 

“Board”  a  popular  term  for  a 
deliberative  body,  144 
Board  of  Bishops,  142,  143,  144 
Board  of  Bishops  must  meet  in 
the  United  States  of  America, 
148,  149,  154 

Boards  of  Benevolence  extended 
to  the  world,  178 
Board  of  Foreign  Located 
Bishops  not  legal,  152 
Boardman,  Richard,  sent  by 
Wesley  to  America,  53 
Books  by  Bishop  Neely,  2 
British  Empire,  analogy  to 
world  church,  308 
Burns,  Bishop  Francis,  first 
missionary  bishop,  135 

C 

Canada,  church  extended  to,  70, 
71 

Canadian  work  independent 
1828,  71,  76 


335 


INDEX 


‘‘Catholic  spirit”  by  John  Wes¬ 
ley,  317 

Centenary  of  missions  1919,  290 
Central  Mission  Conferences, 
233 

Central  Conferences,  six  in  num¬ 
ber,  236 

Central  Conferences,  composed 
of  Annual  Conferences  named, 
233 

Central  Conferences,  provisions 
in  1920,  234 

Central  Conferences,  present 
dangers,  perils  as  to  worship, 
membership,  marriage,  course 
of  study,  etc.,  240 
Central  Conferences  in  Disci¬ 
pline  of  1920,  302 
Central  seat  of  authority,  85,  90 
Century  Dictionary  on  Superin¬ 
tendent,  104 

“Chartered  Fund,”  title  of 
church,  57 

“Character  of  a  Methodist,” 
John  Wesley,  315 
China,  mission  to,  1847,  71 
Chinese  Christian  and  Articles 
of  Religion,  321 
Chinese  National  Church,  195 
Church  of  England  ended  in 
America,  37,  38 
Church  before  all  missions,  171 
Coercion  in  giving  discussed, 
176 

Coke,  Thomas,  40 
Coke,  Thomas,  in  Europe,  98 
“College  of  Bishops,”  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  142 
Conditions  for  Bishops  different 
in  missions  from  the  United 
States  of  America,  258 


Conferences,  Annual  and  Bish¬ 
ops,  140,  141 

Connectional  Boards  extended 
to  all  the  world,  178 
Constitution  fixing  episcopacy, 
110,  111 
Contents,  7 

Continuous  bodies  in  the  church, 
three,  140 

Cromwell,  James  O.,  missionary 
to  Nova  Scotia,  70 

D 

Dedication,  8 

“Deed  of  settlement”  form,  title 
of  church,  57 

“Democratic  World-Wide 
Church,”  322 

Denominational  mission,  289 
Denominational  spirit  and  ideals 
to  be  preserved,  291 
Discipline ,  Book  of ,  1787,  99 
Discipline  of  1872  incorrect  in 
amendment  to  Third  Restric¬ 
tive  Rule,  123 

Doctrinal  Standards  of  Method¬ 
ism. ,  Neely,  318 

Doctrinal  standards  sacrificed  to 
world  church,  322 

E 

Emory,  John,  quoted,  77 
“Episcopacy,”  John  Wesley 
quoted,  96 

Episcopal  formularies,  41 
Episcopal  Rule  before  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  bishops,  96, 
97 

Expert  testimony  on  missionary 
bishops,  275,  276,  277 


336 


INDEX 


p 

Federated,  or  Union  College  in 
mission,  293  „ 

Federation  of  some  kinds  has 
peril,  292 

First  Foreign  Delegate  in  1868 
— history  of  it,  202,  203 
Fleming,  Professor  I.  J.,  Devo¬ 
lutions  in  Mission  Adminis¬ 
tration,  301 

Foreign  Delegates  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference,  198 
Foreign  Delegates  to  the  General 
Conference,  objections,  199 
Foreign  Missions  in  Annual  Con¬ 
ference,  1864,  discussed, 201 ,202 
Foreign  Central  Missions  Con¬ 
ference,  233 

Foreign  Missions  a  peril  if  con¬ 
trolling  the  church,  174,  175 
Foreign  Missions  of  other 
churches  supported,  173 
Foreign  Missions  in  1784,  70 
Foreign  Missions,  unrest,  300 
Foster,  R.  S.,  presenting  dele¬ 
gate  from  mission,  203 
Future  of  the  church  on  present 
lines,  167 

Future  of  the  church  on  possible 
lines,  174 

Future  of  foreign  missions,  191 
G 

General  Conference,  first,  1808, 87 
General  Conference  to  meet 
only  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  89 

General  Conference  of  1920 — 
three  extraordinary  measures, 
234,  235 


General  Conference  no  power 
over  Constitution,  263,  264 
General  Superintendents  on  mis¬ 
sion  fields  make  brief  stay, 
Oldham,  280 

Governing  Conference  in  Method - 
ism,  The,  Neely,  124 
Gracey,  John  T.,  Methodist  Epis¬ 
copal  Missions,  120 
Gracey,  John  T.,  as  delegate 
from  India,  210 

H 

Harris,  Bishop  William,  editor 
of  Discipline  of  1872,  123 
Hartzell,  Bishop  J.  C.,  1896,  132 
Home  Church,  174 
Home  Church  to  do  its  part,  289 
“House  of  Bishops,”  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  142 
Hutchinson,  Rev.  Paul,  The 
Next  Step,  299 

Hutchinson  on  General  Confer¬ 
ence  of  1920,  302,  303 
Hutchinson  on  National  Unrest, 
300 

I 

Independence  in  missions,  Tho- 
burn,  327 

Independent  foreign  missions, 
192,  193 

Independent  movements  in 
China  and  India,  195 
“Indigenous  church”  foreign 
missions,  235 

J  1 

Japan  Mission,  independent,  71 
Journal,  General  Conference, 
title  of  church,  58 


337 


INDEX 


“Jurisdiction,  regional,”  worst 
of  all  dangers,  240,  241 

K 

Kind  of  church  for  world  church 
charged  in  doctrines,  worship, 
terms  of  admission,  323-326 

L 

Lambert,  Jeremiah,  missionary 
to  Nova  Scotia,  70 

The  League,  the  Nation’s  Danger, 
Neely,  180 

Lewis,  Bishop,  262 

Liberal  conditions  for  church  ad¬ 
mission,  318 

Liberal  conditions  apply  to  pro¬ 
bation,  319 

Liberia,  mission  to,  1833,  71 

Lovely  Lane,  35 

M 

McKendree,  Bishop  William, 
1808,  116 

Meantime,  in  the,  what  to  do, 
223 

Meantime,  what  may  be  modi¬ 
fied,  239,  251 

Miller,  Rev.  George  A.,  on  for¬ 
eign  control,  222,  223 

Missions  in  Central  Conferences, 
236 

Missionary  Bishopric,  115 

Missionary  Bishopric,  reason  for 
it,  120 

Missionary  Bishopric  a  great 
success,  261 

Missionary  Bishops — still  legal 
after  1920,  269 

Missionaries,  foreign,  to  Nova 
Scotia,  1784,  70 


Missionaries,  foreign,  to  West 
Indies,  1784,  70 
Missionaries  should  be  elected 
bishops  for  their  field  but  now 
will  not  be,  283 

Missions,  foreign,  and  the 
church,  70,  71 
Missions  in  all  lands,  71 
Missions,  South  American,  72 
Minutes  of  1787  on  Bishops, 
98 

Minutes  of  1788,  1789-1790,  99, 
100 

Moore,  Bishop  David  H.,  to 
China,  28 

N 

Natives  of  India,  China,  and 
other  fields  should  be  but 
now  will  not  be  elected  Bish¬ 
ops,  283 

Neely,  Bishop  Thomas  B.,  on 
Doctrinal  Standards  of  Meth¬ 
odism,  318,  319,  320 
Neely,  Bishop  Thomas  B.,  re¬ 
port  of  subcommittee  on  mis¬ 
sionary  bishops,  1888,  128 
Neely,  Bishop  Thomas  B.,  ques“ 
tions  on  missionary  bishops 
answered,  128-131  • 

Neely,  Bishop  Thomas  B.,  as 
resident  in  South  America 
133,  134,  135 

Negro,  General  Superintendents 
not  constitutional,  270,  271 
Newman,  John  P.,  delegate  for 
the  South,  203 

New  provisions  in  the  Disci¬ 
pline,  234,  235 

Next  Step  Not  a  False  Step,  The 
299 


338 


INDEX 


*  o 

Oldham,  Bishop  W.  F.,  on 
i  ‘Bishops  for  Foreign  Areas,” 
275,  276 

Oldham,  Bishop  W.  F.,  on 
“Missionary  Episcopacy,”  276 
Oldham,  Bishop  W.  F.,  on  “Ra¬ 
cial  Rights  in  Missions,”  282, 
283 

Olin,  Dr.  William  H.,  on  Mis¬ 
sionary  Bishops,  128 
“Only  conditions,”  by  Bishop 
Neely,  319,  320 
Organization  in  1784,  35 
Organized  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  before  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  37,  38 

P 

Pacific  Christian  Advocate  on 
extension  of  all  connectional 
boards  to  all  the  world,  178, 
179 

Perry  Hall,  35 

Pilmoor,  Joseph,  sent  by  Wesleys 
to  “America,”  53 
Plan  of  the  General  Superin¬ 
tendency,  110 

Preachers’  Fund  merged  with 
Chartered  Fund,  56,  57 
Preface,  9 

Present  considerations,  167 
Presiding  Elder  vs.  District  Su¬ 
perintendent,  109 
“Provisional”  southern  dele¬ 
gates,  205 

Provoost,  Bishop,  40 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
organized,  39 


R 

“Regional  jurisdiction”  the 
worst  danger,  251 
Reid,  Dr.  John  M.,  author  Meth¬ 
odist  Episcopal  Missions, 
120 

Relation  to  John  Wesley  sev¬ 
ered,  63 

Residence  of  Bishops,  102 
Residences  of  Missionary  Bish¬ 
ops,  how  fixed,  234 
“Restrictive  Rule,  Third,”  in 
Constitution,  120,  121 
Roberts,  Bishop  John  Wright, 
second  missionary  bishop,  125 

S 

Scotch  Reformers’  use  of  super¬ 
intendent,  108 

Scott,  Bishop  Levi,  visit  to 
Africa,  120 

Seabury,  Bishop  Samuel,  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal  Church,  39, 
40 

Sherman,  Dr.  David,  History  of 
the  Revisions  of  the  Discipline 
incorrect  in  amendments  to 
Third  Restrictive  Rule,  123 
Simpson,  Bishop  Matthew,  Cy¬ 
clopedia  of  Methodism  on 
duties  of  bishops,  145 
Solidarity,  International,  dis¬ 
cussed,  179 

South  America,  Mission  to, 
1836,  71 

Southern  Field  reentered  after 
War,  207 

Southern  Methodists,  1845,  201 
Standards,  doctrinal,  320 


339 


i 


INDEX 


Superintendency  in  general,  is 
itinerant,  travels  at  large  in 
the  church,  95 

Superintendent  idea  continued 
in  church,  103 

Support  of  missionary  bishops, 
130,  131 

Syllabi 

A  Syllabus  of  Chapters,  12 

1st  Syllabus — The  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  13 

2nd  Syllabus— The  Nature  of 
the  Church,  14 

3rd  Syllabus — Foreign  Missions, 
16 

4th  Syllabus — Central  Seat  of 
Authority,  17 

5th  Syllabus — The  Bishopric  of 
Superintendency,  18 

6th  Syllabus — The  Missionary 
Bishopric,  19 

7th  Syllabus — The  Board  of 
Bishops,  21 

8th  Syllabus— Present  Consid¬ 
erations,  23 

9th  Syllabus — The  Future  of 
Foreign  Missions,  24 

10th  Syllabus — In  the  Mean¬ 
time,  26 

11th  Syllabus — The  General 
Conference  of  1920,  27 

12th  Syllabus — Expert  Evi¬ 
dence,  29 

13th  Syllabus — The  Denomina¬ 
tional  Mission,  30 

14th  Syllabus — “The  Next  Step 
Not  a  False  Step,”  31 

T 

Taylor,  Bishop  William  of  Af¬ 
rica,  1884,  125 


Taylor,  Bishop  William,  contro¬ 
versy  over  him,  127 
Thinking  better  than  hasty  ac¬ 
tion,  170 

Thoburn,  Bishop  James  M., 
India,  1888,  132 
Thoburn,  Bishop  James  M.,  on 
Independence  of  Missions,  327 
Title,  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  56,  57 
Title  of  church,  history  of  de¬ 
velopment,  58 

Title  of  Presbyterian  Church,  60 
Title  of  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  60 

U 

Union  Mission  Colleges,  293 
Union  Theological  Schools  peril¬ 
ous  to  Methodism,  294 
United  States  of  Brazil,  62 
United  States  of  Mexico,  62 

V 

“Value  of  missionary  bishops,’ 
by  Oldham,  276,  277 
Vincent,  Bishop  John  H.,  in 
Europe,  28 

Visits  of  Bishops  to  Foreign 
Missions,  102 

W 

Wars  with  foreign  nations  and 
missions,  225 

Washington,  President,  receiving 
Coke  and  Asbury,  56 
Wesley,  John,  on  American 
church,  63 

Wesley,  John,  and  American 
separation,  40 


340 


INDEX 


Wesley,  John,  on  fundamental 
doctrines,  317 

Wesley,  John,  on  the  catholic 
spirit,  317,  318 

“Wesley’s  Way”  not  to  omit 
doctrinal  standards,  320 
White,  Bishop  William,  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal,  108 
White,  Bishop  William,  Prot¬ 
estant  Episcopal,  40 
Withdrawal  of  sections  of  church 
denied  by  General  Conference, 
1848,  78 

Woman’s  Foreign  Missionary 
Society,  73 


“World-Church”  A,  50,  51,  181- 
183,  307 

World-church  ceases  to  be  Amer¬ 
ican,  327,  328 

World-church  government  for 
Rome,  213,  214 

World-government  in  secular 
governments,  216,  217 

Worship,  forms  of,  changed  for 
world-church,  321 

Y 

Year  Book,  Methodist,  1922,  on 
“Missions,”  72 


f 


341 


